• SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago
    1. This is a poor model of AD.

    2. Mouse brains experience a lot of neurogenesis and plasticity not seen in human brains.

    3. The effect is barely significant in the one assay.

      • bedwyr@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        I would add it’s long been known now that brain cells can regenerate. Even longer has it been known the brain can reprogram around damaged cells, to a point, it’s complicated obviously.

        Around 2013 or so, there was a british columbian study where they gave brain damaged rats a type of super cannibinoid, like hundreds of times THC potency, and they regrew their brain cells, never heard any follow up studies on it.

        But in the 90s the mantra was that brain damage was always permanent, a message in service of keeping the kids of the marihuanas.

    • zamithal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      While true, I’m not sure why you’d point these things out like the article is a nothing-burger. Science starts somewhere. Mice have traditionally served this and in (relatively) recent years organoids. This simply means the hypothesis didn’t fail in the first stages and can advance. This is decidedly good news. Is there a good chance this fails in further development? Yes, like all science.