Not really true. See for instance this link
"Opponents call the amyloid hypothesis zombie science, propped up only by pharmaceutical companies hoping to sell off a few more anti-amyloid me-too drugs before it collapses. Meanwhile, mainstream scientists . . . continue to believe it without really offering any public defense. Scott was so surprised by the size of the gap between official and unofficial opinion that he asked if someone from the orthodox camp would speak out in its favor."
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-defense-of-the-amyloid-h...
From that link
"and only slow progression a relatively small amount."
They don't even do that. they _do_ remove plaques, they _do not_ have any statistically significant effect on MMSE degradation.
plus I only see the comments that point out the entire scientific basis for them was based on faked research.
The way I had it "simply" described was "the plaques are basically dead brain cells, the problem is the brain cells rapidly dieing, not cleaning up the corpses afterwards".
either way, the faked research set dementia research back at least 2 decades and wasted billions of dollars on failed medications with no benefits and horrific side effects (that they tried to cover up).
Dale Bredsen says the fundamental nature of Alzheimer's is a network insufficiency.
At minutes 0:16-0:51 in https://x.com/MetabolicFactor/status/1918558438440739258
Yep; this has frustrated me for two decades.