> pay to publish journal
> no clear Alzheimers diagnosis ("[...] were considered clinically most compatible with advanced Alzheimer’s disease")
> administration of a heroic dose of street-quality drugs vs. a controlled sample
> no university or hospital affiliation?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, hence I remain skeptical
I responded to your other comment with this exact text, but to repeat:
This paper is not illuminating to people in the field. This is 3 unaffiliated people who paid to publish an anecdote without any supporting evidence. Paid medical journals are full of these.
Medical professionals know how to spot these claims because they’ve seen a hundred of them over the years that went nowhere. This was published not for the medical establishment, but for news media and social media and maybe to boost the author’s visibility to get funding for something they want to do.
That, or individuals will science on the ones they care for. I for one would write something like that down if I were to start developing dementia/alzheimers.
Dismissing this "study" (really a case file) because of the N=1 and the shady journal seems like a stronger position than bringing in Rogan. Talking about Rogan just looks like partisan posturing.
I recently lost a family member to cancer, and had to go through this conspiracy bullshit from evil pieces of shit peddling snake oil to desprate people. Whatever rabbit holes your social media algorithms have led you down aren't healthy, friend. Clear your cookies and go touch grass.