I disagree. Its more just sensationalization by journalists. The actual paper talks more about an existing model for mice and how their findings are consistent with the model. The most outrageous claim they make is that the study demonstrates the efficacy of HBOT on Alzheimers, which is technically the truth but misleading in the sense that it demonstrates how effective it could be.
The authors should be happy to have added to ongoing alzheimers research. Their actual claims are much less bold than the article makes them out to be.
Oh how I wish that were true! Journalists aren't sensationalizing anything here.
Direct quotes from the paper:
> Motivated by these findings, we exposed elderly patients with significant memory loss at baseline to HBOT and observed an increase in CBF and improvement in cognitive performances. This study demonstrates HBOT efficacy in hypoxia-related neurological conditions, particularly in AD and aging.
> In summary, we showed here that HBOT offers multi-faceted neuroprotective effects on the complex pathology of Alzheimer’s disease and also improves CBF and cognition in humans.
> Given that HBOT is considered a safe and tolerable treatment currently being used in the clinic, the increasing number of clinical trials showing that HBOT improves cognitive function in patients suffering from chronic brain damage, the pre-clinical studies elucidating mechanisms of HBOT action, and the fact that there is presently no effective intervention for AD, HBOT should be considered as a therapeutic approach to slow the progression or even improve the pathophysiology responsible for this disease.
I can't imagine bolder claims than "we showed here that HBOT ... improves CBF and cognition in humans" and "HBOT should be considered as a therapeutic approach".
I mean this literally. I can't imagine it. What else could they have said that would be more direct aside from HBOT will cure you 100% guaranteed?
This is true (and rarely mentioned); rodents don't get AD. But they can be genetically engineered to produce the proteins that researchers consider the hallmarks of AD. The fact that this is a circular definition never fails to frustrate me when discussing the misuse of animals for AD research. (and the fact that billions have been wasted on proving that this circular definition doesn't apply to humans is especially sad)
The authors should be happy to have added to ongoing alzheimers research. Their actual claims are much less bold than the article makes them out to be.