The End of Alzheimer’s, by Dale Bredesen, MD, is finally out. I’ve been waiting for this forever. All the details of his protocol are now available to the public!
This book may save your mind and the minds of your loved ones. Buy it. Read it. Loan it to your doctor. 🙂
Clinical studies using Bredesen’s ReCODE protocol are showing breakthrough results in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s Disease as well as pre-Alzheimer’s. Over 200 patient success stories exist, many are breathtaking. In each case, the disease was well documented before treatment.
Bredesen’s ingenious basic science research on Alzheimer’s Disease has been published in peer-reviewed journals for 28 years, yet strangely his successful clinical protocol papers have received a cold shoulder from the medical establishment.
Is this because Bredesen is going after causes while mainstream medicine is interested only in masking symptoms? No. It may seem that way sometimes, but the truth is much more interesting.
It boils down to a rigid devotion to traditional experimental design which insists that each component of any therapy must be studied separately. Yes, rarely the medical gatekeepers will make an exception and study two medications simultaneously for certain diseases, but the moon has to be just right for such madness.
Historically this monotherapy approach has worked fairly well for diseases with single causes, but it creates a roadblock to clinical research on complex diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
Though the evidence against monotherapy for Alzheimer’s Disease is a billion-dollar wasteland of failed clinical trials, medical authorities cling to their linear way of thinking, blindly following the sacred tradition of scientific fundamentalists throughout history who have uniformly obstructed all major paradigm shifts with their flawed scientific beliefs and assumptions.
In the case of Alzheimer’s Disease, the belief is simple: if you don’t isolate one thing at a time, you’ll never know exactly what that one thing does in isolation.
Brilliant deduction. The assumption, though, is that knowing what each thing does in isolation should always be the ultimate goal of science and medicine.
This is narrow reductionism – dissecting a thing with the mistaken belief that answers can only be found in the parts.
But as Emerson said, “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” Sometimes the destruction of a forest cannot be prevented by focusing only on the trees.
In medical science, understanding a system as a functioning whole in both disease and health is more central than reductionism to the overall goal, which is saving patients’ lives.
Bredesen’s protocol is doing exactly that, as documented in peer-reviewed journals.
Disease complexity is why monotherapy experimental design has made no significant progress against Alzheimer’s Disease. This is a disease with at least 36 to 50 different “things” that can go wrong in various combinations that cause the mind to fail. The numbers and mixes of partial causes differ from one patient to the next, but three broad categories have emerged: Inflammatory, atrophic and toxic.
All three produce the same pathognomonic plaques and tangles under light microscopy, so pathologists consider Alzheimer’s a single disease, and drug companies target amyloid with their failed monotherapies.
It’s not as simple as they assume.
Clinically testing Bredesen’s therapies for each of the 36 to 50 causal elements in isolation, if it were possible and fundable (which it’s not), would take many decades and result in falsely negative and/or equivocal outcomes. This is because:
1. Each component of Bredesen’s protocol reverses only a small fraction of the 36 to 50 disease-promoting processes, and those processes are not uniformly distributed in the Alzheimer’s population. So any one of them tested in isolation would not likely have enough overall effect to achieve statistical significance. It’s like firing a shotgun one pellet at a time expecting to stop a serial killer in your bedroom. Stupid, right? Bredesen’s total protocol (tailored to each patient with lab tests) is needed to reverse mild to moderate Alzheimer’s Disease.
2. The synergistic effects of therapeutic components are foolishly eliminated by linear monotherapy-biased experimental design. Keep red and green separate and you won’t discover yellow.
Ignoring Bredesen’s work, as the orthodox mainstream currently prefers to do, is the moral equivalent of physical abuse to Alzheimer’s patients.
The mechanisms producing Alzheimer’s Disease take decades to produce symptoms, so when memory loss or difficulty with word-finding shows up, the disease has already been silently progressing for decades. The earlier you treat it, the better your chances for complete reversal. The worst thing you can do is wait for early symptoms to progress.
If you know anyone with subjective cognitive decline or mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease, do them the biggest favor of their lives. Read Dale Bredesen’s breakthrough book for yourself and share your knowledge. Maybe the person you care about won’t be fooled by the supercilious, confident, sophisticated-sounding monotherapy zombies who feel they must watch their patients die while waiting for a prescription pill from a drug company.
Sorry, that sounds harsh. But people are dying in the worst imaginable hell while a scientifically documented breakthrough is ignored. It’s astonishing!
The problem is that most MD’s are too busy to read extensively and learn how to distinguish good science from unsubstantiated claims. So they blindly listen to authorities who have the power to take away their licenses.
In medical school, we studied our lecture notes and books with virtually no impetus to learn to critically evaluate journal articles. We had one brief class in statistics.
Anyway, here’s a video interview of Dale Bredesen discussing the groundbreaking, unprecedented results of his ReCODE protocol. Enjoy!
Learning the truth is always fun, and…
“It’s fun to have fun, but you’ve got to know how.” – Dr. Seuss.
Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD
Retired Pathologist, science fiction writer, and novel content editor.
(I have no conflicts of interest to report and no personal acquaintance with Dr. Bredesen.)