The scientific community is cautiously optimistic about a new plaque-busting drug to tackle dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Although there are other treatments on the market, this antidote is the first shown to slow and reverse the buildup of plaque in the brain which is linked to memory loss.
The results of a multi-year trial with 166 people were reported in the journal Nature, but have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. This Phase II trial produced tantalizing data showing the drug reduces toxic plaques in six regions of the brain and slows the progression of memory loss.
Although scientists are still grappling with questions about causes of Alzheimer's, plaques and so-called tangles are prime suspects in cell death and tissue loss associated with the disease. That's why the drug's potential for decreasing plaque is viewed as a game-changer in Alzheimer's treatment.
Up until the ground-breaking trial, the only available treatments for Alzheimers were targeted at the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. The drugs include inhibitors, such as Pfizer's Aricept, which slow memory loss but do not reverse the disease.
The experimental drug, manufactured by pharmaceutical company Biogen, Inc., is called aducanumab. The drug is a monoclonal antibody, which originally was harvested from brain-healthy, older donors. Biogen now makes the drug in its laboratory to mimic the body's immune system.
Scientists theorized that the antibodies from healthy older people had already resisted the onset of dementia and Alzheimer's. Researchers speculated these same antibodies could be used in those with early signs of memory loss, before the ravages of brain disease rendered treatment infeasible.
The peer-reviewed data from the trail rekindled new enthusiasm by clinicians and doctors to enroll their patients in aducanumab trials. A large Phase III study was launched in August of last year, aimed at recruiting 1,350 people for trials at 150 centers in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia.
Phase III trials are designed to confirm the effectiveness of a drug, while monitoring its side effects and comparing it to other treatments. The results of the research will help quantify dosage levels for patients and assess the safety of the drug.
The next step will be garnering the stamp of approval from the Federal Drug Administration. It is the last hurdle before aducanumab can be offered commercially to patients.
For many Americans, the drug cannot come to market fast enough. There are 5.1 million Americans with Alzheimer's disease. Research from the National Institute of Aging indicates that Alzheimer's disease doubles every five years beyond age 65.
That is not good news because the lifespan of Americans is increasing. The Census Bureau projects the number of people age 65 and older will more than double by 2050 to 88.5 million Americans. In 34 years, the number of 85 and older people will leap three-fold to 19 million.
Those numbers underscore the urgency the scientific community feels to find a cure. Alzheimer's is the most expensive disease to treat, costing more than cancer or heart disease. Caring for those with Alzheimer's carries a price tag estimated at $236 billion for this year alone.
Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States.
Unfortunately, the large-scale Phase III trial for aducanumab is expected to run until 2022. If the results remain positive, then the approval process will begin with the FDA. That could take years, even longer.
Meanwhile, the numbers of Alzheimer's victims will grow. Whatever can be done to speed up the trials and government approval, must be done. The clock is ticking and every year without a cure brings death, heartache and financial ruin to millions of Americans.
Monday, September 26, 2016
Monday, September 12, 2016
Progressives' Attacks on Charter Schools
Battles lines have been drawn in the war against public charter schools. Proponents are parents of minority students, leading education reformers and school choice advocates. Opponents include the NAACP, teachers' unions, liberal Democrats and even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
What began as a few skirmishes between politicians and charter schools in urban cities has escalated into a pitched political battle. Each side has developed competing studies that support their narrative. The issue of charter schools is now front and center in many mayoral and gubernatorial contests.
Why the contentious upsurge in interest?
Progressives, the politically sanitized name adopted by liberals, are alarmed at the growth and success of charter schools. In about 20 years, charter schools have exploded on the scene with more than 6,700 facilities in 42 states and the District of Columbia, educating nearly 3 million children.
Those numbers do not sit well with progressive politicians, who are beholden to the National Federation of Teachers (AFT). The union shovel millions into politicians' coffers to protect their members from performance-based pay and promotion. They are hidebound to the status quo.
AFT has political muscle few unions can match. It claims a membership of more than 1.5 million. It dominates union membership in inner city schools, a Democratic Party stronghold. It has more than $100 million in assets and doles out bushels of cash to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
Their opposition to charter schools is easily understood. More puzzling is the disapproval voiced by the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), an organization supposedly dedicated to advancing the rights of African-Americans.
Charter schools are mostly located in urban centers with large minority populations. For the record, charter schools are public schools, receiving funding from local, state and federal sources based on enrollment. A few are operated by for-profit private firms, but still get public funding.
However, there are a couple of other important distinctions between charter and traditional public schools. Charter schools are independently run, free from the bureaucracy that hamstrings public education. Teachers do not belong to unions and are paid and promoted based on performance.
Among the biggest supporters of charter schools are minorities. A 2013 poll of black voters found 85 percent were in favor of the government providing parents with as many school choices as possible. More than 50 percent supported charter schools.
Progressive politicians like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have discovered waging war on charter schools comes with a price. He ran against expanding charter schools in New York City and won handily. However, he overplayed his hand when he demanded charter schools pay rent.
Black parents fought back. There were rallies in the streets and angry parents demanded charter schools be allowed to co-locate in the same buildings with public schools. De Blasio had good reasons for trying to kick-out charter schools. Charter schools made public schools look bad.
In a highly-publicized case, two New York City middle schools were located in the same building and drew students from similar backgrounds. In the charter school, 80 percent of the students passed the state math test and 59 percent made the grade on the English test.
By comparison, the results were miserable in the public school. Five percent of students managed a passing grade on the math test. The English test had an 11 percent passing rate. No wonder de Blasio didn't want the schools co-located where the comparisons were politically damning.
Charter schools are changing the educational landscape, a prospect unions fear. Charter schools offer innovative curricula. They experiment with new teaching methods. The schools focus on helping every student succeed. Typically, they stress discipline and have no tolerance for misbehavior.
There are waiting lists in every district that offers a charter school alternative, attesting to their popularity with parents. Nationwide, there are more than one million names on charter school wait lists, according to a Manhattan Institute study. In New York City, the wait lists tops 70,000.
Democrats and their accomplices in the NAACP march to the drumbeat of the teacher unions, fighting against the very people (minorities) they claim to champion. Their opposition is strictly a matter of political greed. They value union contributions over children's future.
A national study found that 28 percent of charter school students are African-American, nearly double the percentage for traditional public schools. Without school choice, the families of these students would be stuck inside failing schools with no opportunity for escape.
This election year school choice has been paid little more than lip service. Voters should demand to know the positions of every candidate on charter schools. Those against supporting school choices deserve a failing education grade and are no friends of minorities.
Vote for candidates who want every child to succeed in school with no youngster left behind in a under performing public education facility.
AFT has political muscle few unions can match. It claims a membership of more than 1.5 million. It dominates union membership in inner city schools, a Democratic Party stronghold. It has more than $100 million in assets and doles out bushels of cash to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
Their opposition to charter schools is easily understood. More puzzling is the disapproval voiced by the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), an organization supposedly dedicated to advancing the rights of African-Americans.
Charter schools are mostly located in urban centers with large minority populations. For the record, charter schools are public schools, receiving funding from local, state and federal sources based on enrollment. A few are operated by for-profit private firms, but still get public funding.
However, there are a couple of other important distinctions between charter and traditional public schools. Charter schools are independently run, free from the bureaucracy that hamstrings public education. Teachers do not belong to unions and are paid and promoted based on performance.
Among the biggest supporters of charter schools are minorities. A 2013 poll of black voters found 85 percent were in favor of the government providing parents with as many school choices as possible. More than 50 percent supported charter schools.
Progressive politicians like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have discovered waging war on charter schools comes with a price. He ran against expanding charter schools in New York City and won handily. However, he overplayed his hand when he demanded charter schools pay rent.
Black parents fought back. There were rallies in the streets and angry parents demanded charter schools be allowed to co-locate in the same buildings with public schools. De Blasio had good reasons for trying to kick-out charter schools. Charter schools made public schools look bad.
In a highly-publicized case, two New York City middle schools were located in the same building and drew students from similar backgrounds. In the charter school, 80 percent of the students passed the state math test and 59 percent made the grade on the English test.
By comparison, the results were miserable in the public school. Five percent of students managed a passing grade on the math test. The English test had an 11 percent passing rate. No wonder de Blasio didn't want the schools co-located where the comparisons were politically damning.
Charter schools are changing the educational landscape, a prospect unions fear. Charter schools offer innovative curricula. They experiment with new teaching methods. The schools focus on helping every student succeed. Typically, they stress discipline and have no tolerance for misbehavior.
There are waiting lists in every district that offers a charter school alternative, attesting to their popularity with parents. Nationwide, there are more than one million names on charter school wait lists, according to a Manhattan Institute study. In New York City, the wait lists tops 70,000.
Democrats and their accomplices in the NAACP march to the drumbeat of the teacher unions, fighting against the very people (minorities) they claim to champion. Their opposition is strictly a matter of political greed. They value union contributions over children's future.
A national study found that 28 percent of charter school students are African-American, nearly double the percentage for traditional public schools. Without school choice, the families of these students would be stuck inside failing schools with no opportunity for escape.
This election year school choice has been paid little more than lip service. Voters should demand to know the positions of every candidate on charter schools. Those against supporting school choices deserve a failing education grade and are no friends of minorities.
Vote for candidates who want every child to succeed in school with no youngster left behind in a under performing public education facility.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Will Hackers Hijack The Presidential Election?
Nearly 16 years after "hanging chads" threw the 2000 presidential election into chaos, a new threat of vote tampering looms over the upcoming contest. Fears of a rigged election gained traction when the FBI director warned states about the potential of hackers invading voting systems in November.
Director James Comey sounded the alarm last week after it was disclosed there have been cyberattacks in recent weeks on voter databases in Illinois and Arizona. He divulged the FBI takes "very seriously" the prospect "of an effort to influence the conduct of affairs in our country."
Comey's assessment comes on the heels of comments by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who both expressed concerns about election fraud. In today's overheated climate, the candidates' statements coupled with Comey's assertion have cast a pall over the presidential election.
If Americans cannot trust the voting procedure, then the entire premise of our democracy is at risk.
An investigation reveals that the biggest threat to America's presidential election may be outdated technology rather than hacking, according to a 2015 study by New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice.
Researchers discovered that 43 states will be using electronic voting machines that are at least a decade old. Many of the machines, manufactured in the 1990's, are susceptible to malfunctions and may have serious security flaws. The price tag for replacing the machines is more than $1 billion.
As a result of the replacement costs, many states have delayed purchasing new voting equipment. If the antiquated machines fail, it may fuel longer voting lines and force delays in results thus eroding public confidence in the election outcome. In a close contest, it will ignite a political firestorm.
Although hacking may be a ominous prospect, it would be nearly impossible to rig the election because of the myriad of voting methods used in the 9,000 precincts in the country. Eighteen states still use old-fashioned paper ballots, which are tabulated in most cases by optical scanners.
Others states use infamous punchcard systems and touchscreen devices, which are often referred to as Digital Recording Electronic (DRE) systems. The later employ computers to record votes directly into the computer's memory. The last of the mechanical lever voting machines was retired after 2010.
There is no data available on the exact number of electronic versus paper voting systems. However, most voters will be using paper ballots or punchcards, reports Verified Voting Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan group that provides data on elections.
A group or foreign country would have to deploy hundreds of its agents to fiddle with computers, punchcards and optical paper ballot scanners. Many voting machines are so old that they are not easily hacked because a cybercriminal would need to be physically located next to the device.
However, this does not mean it is impossible to alter voting results. If someone wanted to fix the election, the hacker could install malware on scanning devices used to tabulate votes. But the individual would have to place the software on the device right before the ballot counting began.
To rig the election, the cybercriminals would have to install the malware on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vote tabulation scanners across the nation. That kind of widespread tampering would surely be noticed by poll watchers, election officials and party observers.
These assurances aside, there is understandable angst about the voting process. The country was put on notice about the vulnerability of its systems when someone hacked the Democrat Party's emails. Suspicion rests on the Russians, but there has been no confirmation from the FBI.
The best defense against a rigged election remains updating the outmoded voting machines and tabulators. States must spend the money to insure fair elections. With the very foundation of democracy at stake, they can no longer afford to use funding as an excuse for lack of action.
At least all this talk about hacking elections has produced one positive outcome. Officials who support voting over the internet are having second thoughts. Online voting would be a hackers dream come true. Better for the country to have to deal with hanging chads.
Director James Comey sounded the alarm last week after it was disclosed there have been cyberattacks in recent weeks on voter databases in Illinois and Arizona. He divulged the FBI takes "very seriously" the prospect "of an effort to influence the conduct of affairs in our country."
Comey's assessment comes on the heels of comments by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who both expressed concerns about election fraud. In today's overheated climate, the candidates' statements coupled with Comey's assertion have cast a pall over the presidential election.
If Americans cannot trust the voting procedure, then the entire premise of our democracy is at risk.
An investigation reveals that the biggest threat to America's presidential election may be outdated technology rather than hacking, according to a 2015 study by New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice.
Researchers discovered that 43 states will be using electronic voting machines that are at least a decade old. Many of the machines, manufactured in the 1990's, are susceptible to malfunctions and may have serious security flaws. The price tag for replacing the machines is more than $1 billion.
As a result of the replacement costs, many states have delayed purchasing new voting equipment. If the antiquated machines fail, it may fuel longer voting lines and force delays in results thus eroding public confidence in the election outcome. In a close contest, it will ignite a political firestorm.
Although hacking may be a ominous prospect, it would be nearly impossible to rig the election because of the myriad of voting methods used in the 9,000 precincts in the country. Eighteen states still use old-fashioned paper ballots, which are tabulated in most cases by optical scanners.
Others states use infamous punchcard systems and touchscreen devices, which are often referred to as Digital Recording Electronic (DRE) systems. The later employ computers to record votes directly into the computer's memory. The last of the mechanical lever voting machines was retired after 2010.
There is no data available on the exact number of electronic versus paper voting systems. However, most voters will be using paper ballots or punchcards, reports Verified Voting Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan group that provides data on elections.
A group or foreign country would have to deploy hundreds of its agents to fiddle with computers, punchcards and optical paper ballot scanners. Many voting machines are so old that they are not easily hacked because a cybercriminal would need to be physically located next to the device.
However, this does not mean it is impossible to alter voting results. If someone wanted to fix the election, the hacker could install malware on scanning devices used to tabulate votes. But the individual would have to place the software on the device right before the ballot counting began.
To rig the election, the cybercriminals would have to install the malware on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vote tabulation scanners across the nation. That kind of widespread tampering would surely be noticed by poll watchers, election officials and party observers.
These assurances aside, there is understandable angst about the voting process. The country was put on notice about the vulnerability of its systems when someone hacked the Democrat Party's emails. Suspicion rests on the Russians, but there has been no confirmation from the FBI.
The best defense against a rigged election remains updating the outmoded voting machines and tabulators. States must spend the money to insure fair elections. With the very foundation of democracy at stake, they can no longer afford to use funding as an excuse for lack of action.
At least all this talk about hacking elections has produced one positive outcome. Officials who support voting over the internet are having second thoughts. Online voting would be a hackers dream come true. Better for the country to have to deal with hanging chads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)