* Download comes with a free subscription to our newsletter. You can unsubscribe any time. You will not get duplicate emails if you download more than one report.
For most Americans, due to all the costs, this protocol will be out of reach. The sample size all this is based on is very small and I am not totally convinced it will work. However, the marketing is very well thought out. It is a shame when so many folks are dealing with this who are on fixed incomes can’t access these recommendations. Especially since Mr. Geffen has been funding this researcher! I don’t really see any reviews from patients or their families either which is odd. This information has been out for what 2 yrs now and just now hearing about it. If it was such a slam dunk then why hasn’t some group offered to buy the protocol to make it free to all those who need it? Instead it has been sold to a health care marketing company. This health group has bought it and has created this pay to play setup and part of the deal is as more is learned you will learn so there is a monthly subscription which means they haven’t figured it out! You have to pay $1400 or rather $1399 for one time fee or monthly fee and it gets confusing as to whether they will do that for U.S. patients. Then you have to find a doctor locally who has signed up with them to access their software, if not they can have a tele doctor help you. I wonder what fees the doctors have to pay? Then you have to pay for labs and they won’t know what all the costs for those will be but it sounds like it can be expensive and my guess is your insurance may not cover them since it is probably still considered experimental. It also sounds like your insurance is not going to pay for the 2 hours for the doctor visits much at all. Then you have to meet with the doctor maybe 3 times a year. I just bet they will use the data from these participants to support their protocol and the participants will be paying most of the on going research or their insurance will if they are really lucky. It seems rather one sided. It feels a bit scammy. You would think, if in fact this protocol is the best cure for Alzheimer, that this would be shared world wide for all doctors to implement to patients much like so many other cures that impact a majority. Maybe have the NIH collect the data like The Human Microbiome Project. They can’t go there yet or ever and that is why this is being doled out the way it is. This makes me question Rhonda’s role in this. I see her tests show she has some genetic leanings for one type of Alzheimers and well she is all in … just in case. She promotes him but has she seen any improvements in xrays of her brain or something? I was hoping that Rhonda was a good source of information but I am now a bit skeptical of her approach and whom she is promoting. For years we have watched these types of sites and each time we are hoping maybe this will be the site that is not just marketing but actually promoting sound and ETHICAL science for human kind not just how much profit can be made. Sadly, as we all know so many take tidbits and exploit them as marketing tools with online heath sites. Is it no surprise so many have become jaded by such sites. Robb Wolf comes to mind with his fancy talk and all the holes in his stuff. The list goes on and on.
Hi! This was a big comment, but I’ll do my best to at least address a few points.
First of all, and most importantly, I bear no affiliation or financial ties with this episode’s guest or their work. My motivation for having Dr. Bredesen on the podcast is because I value what he’s doing and think it offers value to this community. Judging by the overall reception, thankfully, I think quite a few people agree!
You’ll notice that while I have linked to the company that offers the protocol within the show notes, in the episode itself it’s almost an afterthought. In fact, there are many things shared in the video (e.g. the broad strokes of some of the important biomarkers and even their desired ranges) that should be reasonably useful to a person that may or may not ever go through the official channels to use the protocol.
I think any sort of suggestion that the episode is an infomercial is a vast misrepresentation of the actual content, especially with the effort my team and I put into documenting the literature being referenced.
This point aside, you seem to have two other primary concerns, the first of which is efficacy and the second is the cost of participating in the protocol, which may involve an expensive baseline billed directly (but only if it’s not covered by insurance).
As for efficacy, I think it’s obvious these are still very early days. Again, there’s transparency to some degree about this in the episode (especially when we talk about the 2014 MEND and his upcoming paper that represents a larger number of patients) — in retrospect, it might have been useful to have a more fully formed conversation about that. Needless to say, I still don’t think it’s good cause to be dismissive.
In particular, I admire the gestalt sort of approach of the Bredesen protocol, because, while the individual “weight” of some of the interventions he’s focusing on may, I expect, be re-tuned from time to time to great a more targeted impact, it’s obvious that making an honest best effort at taking everything that’s known at a mechanistic level about Alzheimer’s specifically (and better aging generally) and weaving it into an approach that is immediately usable for those of us at risk presents some value. That’s probably the best you can get at this stage. More importantly, he’s even set up the infrastructure to allow that to happen under the care of a healthcare practitioner.
In many ways, that’s amazing! Turning early research into something clinically useful is a feat in and of itself, but even more so when you take into account that it’s entirely at odds with the way healthcare usually works. You may be met with pushback, for example, if you ask for a follow-up hemoglobin A1C just three months after having had one in normative ranges.
In the episode, you will hear Dr. Bredesen making this point in a variety of ways, talking about how he believes certain important biomarkers represented as within normal limits are actually not optimal or how some forms of insulin resistance may not be peripherally obvious.
I think anyone reasonable (even amongst the professionals) will be able to follow that as being a perfectly logically coherent thought, but without being able to justify the cost to insurance, they probably have trouble continuing to try to optimize on numbers that are otherwise within normal limits. At least that’s my impression from my own interactions as an otherwise healthy but prevention concerned consumer of the healthcare system.
One of the ways around this “systemic glitch” is probably to establish a baseline with a wide array of tests via direct to consumer tests — ones insurance may be hesitant to cover in some cases — and then work on the problem areas once they’ve been identified and may be easier to justify. In other words, exactly what the company Dr. Bredesen is partnering with seems to be doing.
This is obviously not perfect since it may ultimately mean not everyone will be able to access the care in the same way, but, hopefully, as future clinical success translates into more published case reports the tide will turn and prevention will become a prime mover rather than an afterthought. In general, though, I think it’s a pretty good compromise they have going with the current situation and still, in the worst case, a lot cheaper than even a few months of memory care.
© Copyright FoundMyFitness.