Quantum Effect in the Brain Challenges Conventional Wisdom

Amyloids May Not Cause Alzheimer’s: Quantum Effect in the Brain Challenges Conventional Wisdom

By Howard University 

Because many amyloid fibrils have a very high density of tryptophans arranged in multiple helices, their ability to absorb damaging photons and downconvert the energy—photoprotection—is much stronger than anyone suspected before. This could suggest that amyloid, rather than being a cause of Alzheimer’s, is actually the body’s adaptive response to a stressful environment that is awash with a higher proportion of UV photons from free radicals.

“The Kurian group has made an outstanding scientific contribution in elucidating the potential role of amyloid fibrils in mitigating oxidative stress and photophysical damage,” said Professor Lon Schneider, director of the USC California Alzheimer’s Disease Center, who was not involved in the research. “This work has profound implications for understanding the pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease, as researchers generally work under the assumption that amyloid must be the proper target for treatment. On the contrary, Kurian’s work suggests that, rather than a cause of the disease, amyloid aggregation and fibril formation are a protective response.”

The next step is to validate this prediction experimentally, but Kurian also wants colleagues in biology and neuroscience to start thinking more broadly about how quantum perspectives are an essential part of the life sciences. “We want to help others see that the interactions of light and quantum matter have significant relevance to all living systems,” he said.

Video:

Amyloid fibrils have been targeted in a variety of neurodegenerative diseases. The amyloid cascade hypothesis, on which many modern Alzheimer’s treatments are based, presumes that these fibrils are the cause of the disease. However, emerging evidence suggests that amyloid fibrils supporting vast spiral architectures of tryptophan molecules serve a photoprotective role as superabsorbers of high-energy UV light produced by oxidative metabolism. Such tryptophan networks have been experimentally confirmed in other cellular protein filaments to exhibit a uniquely quantum optical effect known as single-photon superradiance, which enables the photoprotective response.

Credit: Quantum Biology Laboratory: Nathan Babcock and Philip Kurian

Amyloids May Not Cause Alzheimer’s: Quantum Effect in the Brain Challenges Conventional Wisdom

By Howard University 

Because many amyloid fibrils have a very high density of tryptophans arranged in multiple helices, their ability to absorb damaging photons and downconvert the energy—photoprotection—is much stronger than anyone suspected before. This could suggest that amyloid, rather than being a cause of Alzheimer’s, is actually the body’s adaptive response to a stressful environment that is awash with a higher proportion of UV photons from free radicals.

This reminds me of cholesterol ~ believed to be the "cause" of "heart disease". No, it's just another part of the body's healing mechanisms, to patch up the damage caused by too much sugar.

I find it amusing ~ there's a trend of seeing a symptom, and then the symptom is blamed rather than investigating further.

This reminds me of cholesterol ~ believed to be the "cause" of "heart disease". No, it's just another part of the body's healing mechanisms, to patch up the damage caused by too much sugar.

I find it amusing ~ there's a trend of seeing a symptom, and then the symptom is blamed rather than investigating further.

Curious what you mean, as I am still seeing stuff about how cholesterol is a danger?

Curious what you mean, as I am still seeing stuff about how cholesterol is a danger?

The link between high LDL cholesterol and heart disease is solid. However, biological systems are highly complex and diverse, likely with many hidden factors. This complexity can lead people who tend to believe there are simple answers to everything to mistakenly think that the link isn't there. As cardiovascular heart disease is many years in making it’s not easy to conduct controlled experiments within this space. But for example people who are generically predisposed for high cholesterol have much higher rates of rates of heart disease and this can be proven with simple statistical tests.

Curious what you mean, as I am still seeing stuff about how cholesterol is a danger?

Cholesterol is used by the body to do a tone of stuff. It makes up a majority of cell walls, is used to make every major hormone, and is extensively found in the brain. Alzheimer's has been called diabetes type 3 by some, and cholesterol is used by the body to patch up and heal inflammation caused by sugar.

The link between high LDL cholesterol and heart disease is solid. However, biological systems are highly complex and diverse, likely with many hidden factors. This complexity can lead people who tend to believe there are simple answers to everything to mistakenly think that the link isn't there. As cardiovascular heart disease is many years in making it’s not easy to conduct controlled experiments within this space. But for example people who are generically predisposed for high cholesterol have much higher rates of rates of heart disease and this can be proven with simple statistical tests.

If so, this series of results is hard to explain:

https://vernerwheelock.com/179-cholester...mortality/

Note that you don't need to trust the author - these were large studies done with public money.

This is strangely typical of medical studies. If they come out in support of current dogma the results are highlighted in the media. If they come to the 'wrong' conclusion, they are sidelined.

Note that these studies look at all-cause mortality, not heart disease deaths. As the dissident Dr. Kendrick points out, mortality figures are more reliable because they are less easy to fiddle!

I follow this doctrine - I.e. I take no notice of my Cholesterol levels and just try to avoid sugar. So far that has worked pretty well - I am almost 75 and do not have any form of cardiovascular disease.

BTW, arren't we going way off topic and into areas of controversy?

David

Curious what you mean, as I am still seeing stuff about how cholesterol is a danger?

Medicine is very coy about owning up to past mistakes. This is why you can still read that:

1) Cholesterol is a cause of heart disease/stroke.

2) Salt is dangerous at the sort of levels people would normally want to use it.

3) Saturated fat is bad for you.

4) Polyunsaturated fats (seed oils) are best.

None of these ideas hold up to testing, but were once believed to be true!

Once again - aren't we going off topic?

David

If so, this series of results is hard to explain:

https://vernerwheelock.com/179-cholester...mortality/

Note that you don't need to trust the author - these were large studies done with public money.

This is strangely typical of medical studies. If they come out in support of current dogma the results are highlighted in the media. If they come to the 'wrong' conclusion, they are sidelined.

Note that these studies look at all-cause mortality, not heart disease deaths. As the dissident Dr. Kendrick points out, mortality figures are more reliable because they are less easy to fiddle!

I follow this doctrine - I.e. I take no notice of my Cholesterol levels and just try to avoid sugar. So far that has worked pretty well - I am almost 75 and do not have any form of cardiovascular disease.

BTW, arren't we going way off topic and into areas of controversy?

David

I think that there may be several ways to interpret this sort of data, that could explain it. Conceivably, the results might be an artifact of the selection criteria for the individuals chosen for the studies. Look at the following quoted sections of the linked report as examples:

"In the Ibaraki Prefecture (Japan)Health Study, 91,219 men and women aged 40-79 years without any history of stroke or coronary heart disease (CHD) were followed for just over 10 years. It was found that the all-cause mortality was inversely correlated with the level of LDL cholesterol. In other words the higher the LDL cholesterol the greater the life expectancy, which of course is in direct conflict with the conventional wisdom.
........................................
The Jichi Medical School (Japan) Cohort Study is one of the most recent, large epidemiological studies conducted in Japan in which 12,234 healthy adults from rural communities were followed for almost 12 years. Once again, the highest death rates from all causes was in those with the lowest TC values. In this investigation even the exclusion of deaths within the first 5 years did not alter the relationship between low TC levels and the high mortality. The exclusion of deaths caused by liver disease also made no difference to this conclusion. However in this study the relationship between the death rates and TC levels in men was U-shaped so there was some increase at the higher values. But in women it was clear that as the higher the TC, the lower the death rate."

In both of these studies, the investigators deliberately chose people who were quite healthy already; in the first case stated to have no heart disease or history of stroke, and in the second case stated to be from rural areas and therefore more likely to have a natural diet and less prone to already existing heart disease.

It seems to me that in both of these studies, the studied individuals may have by selection been already genetically and constitutionally not prone to heart disease, and therefore happen to be (by selection) body system types who were less or little subject to negative effects of what are conventionally considered to be high cholesterol levels. These selected subjects of the studies may therefore have been individuals where the natural normal relation applied, where high LDL actually promoted health. The same reasoning would apply to the second quoted study of rural inhabitants.

At the least, it seems to me that the most reasonable or minimum conclusion for these studies would be that in individuals either constitutionally not subject to heart disease, and/or individuals specifically not sensitive to what are conventionally considered health-effectingly high LDL levels, higher LDL levels do actually correspond to generally better health and lower death rate. Correspondingly, it is possible that in individuals genetically inclined to have a different biological constutution where a lower "set point" of where higher LDL levels start to adversely affect the cardiac system, the opposite relation obtains and higher LDL levels correspond to and do cause greater rates of heart disease, which situation is encountered in many city-dwellers.

It would boil down to maybe there is a significant portion of the population that is not constitutionally subject to high-LDL-caused heart disease, where LDL-controlling medications and life style/dietary changes are not necessary and are even deleterious (and where the pharmaceutical and medical establishments do not need to be enriched). In these people, expensive and side-effect-prone medical intervention would not be necessary rather than blanket-applied to everyone. Research studies showing that would naturally be discouraged. However, there would still be a definite need for medical intervention in those who are subject to the problem.

At least this seems to be a plausible alternate interpretation which was not controlled for by the investigators. I think much of the cited research may have similar flaws.

I think that there may be several ways to interpret this sort of data, that could explain it. Conceivably, the results might be an artifact of the selection criteria for the individuals chosen for the studies. Look at the following quoted sections of the linked report as examples:


In both of these studies, the investigators deliberately chose people who were quite healthy already; in the first case stated to have no heart disease or history of stroke, and in the second case stated to be from rural areas and therefore more likely to have a natural diet and less prone to already existing heart disease.

It seems to me that in both of these studies, the studied individuals may have by selection been already genetically and constitutionally not prone to heart disease, and therefore happen to be (by selection) body system types who were less or little subject to negative effects of what are conventionally considered to be high cholesterol levels. These selected subjects of the studies may therefore have been individuals where the natural normal relation applied, where high LDL actually promoted health. The same reasoning would apply to the second quoted study of rural inhabitants.

At the least, it seems to me that the most reasonable or minimum conclusion for these studies would be that in individuals either constitutionally not subject to heart disease, and/or individuals specifically not sensitive to what are conventionally considered health-effectingly high LDL levels, higher LDL levels do actually correspond to generally better health and lower death rate. Correspondingly, it is possible that in individuals genetically inclined to have a different biological constutution where a lower "set point" of where higher LDL levels start to adversely affect the cardiac system, the opposite relation obtains and higher LDL levels correspond to and do cause greater rates of heart disease, which situation is encountered in many city-dwellers.

It would boil down to maybe there is a significant portion of the population that is not constitutionally subject to high-LDL-caused heart disease, where LDL-controlling medications and life style/dietary changes are not necessary and are even deleterious (and where the pharmaceutical and medical establishments do not need to be enriched). In these people, expensive and side-effect-prone medical intervention would not be necessary rather than blanket-applied to everyone. Research studies showing that would naturally be discouraged. However, there would still be a definite need for medical intervention in those who are subject to the problem.

At least this seems to be a plausible alternate interpretation which was not controlled for by the investigators. I think much of the cited research may have similar flaws.

The point is that people (at least in the UK) are tested for their LDL levels and medicated with statins if the LDL level is 'too high'. The medication is started just on the basis of the test. The conventional idea is that high LDL levels cause plaque and to initiate cardiovascular disease (which includes both heart disease and strokes). Those with higher 'natural' LDL levels should have been further along this path.

Given that, I would have thought that people in the study would have been more likely to get cardiovascular disease than others in the group in the conventional theory of heart disease were correct.

David

Medicine is complicated. I looked again at the conclusions of the study as covered in the article, and it turns out I had missed the primary underlying factor - although high LDL and total cholesterol unquestionably cause increased arterial plaque and corresponding coronary heart disease (and higher death rate due to those causes), this high LDL and TC according to the statistics also cause considerably lower cancer death rates. So the result is that overall net mortality rate due to all causes goes down as  LDL and TC levels increase. So the obvious conclusion is that it is useless and even doing harm to artificially try to keep LDL and TC low in the hope that the lower CHD achieves a lower probability of death. 

Excerpt from the Conclusions:

"...when the focus is on older people, which is when the vast majority deaths occur, and on all-cause mortality the perception of the risks associated with cholesterol are reversed. It is also highly significant that these results do NOT conflict with the research on middle-aged men and heart disease. The data from Honolulu confirm that in those involved in the study with low cholesterol there was a low death rate from heart disease but crucially the incidence of cancer was relatively high and demonstrates why it is vital to consider the big picture. The emphasis on TC and LDL cholesterol as risk factors was based on a complete failure to do so. There is absolutely no logical justification for advising people to lower their TC or their LDL cholesterol. On the contrary all the evidence which is now available indicates that that the higher the better. The results for women are quite exceptional and show consistently that those with the highest TC values invariably have the greatest life expectancy."