Jason et al., Looks like no one has any training in neuroscience (or scientific analysis) here, so let's go over the basics: (1) The "debunking" you quote from the Lancet does not address data--it's all opinion. Look at the cases themselves, the changes in cognitive scores, the objective data. In addition to this ancient (2014) paper, which described the first reversals of cognitive decline in patients with AD or pre-AD, we have published 100 documented cases of improvement (in J. Alz Dis and Parkinsonism, publicly available) and posted a successful proof-of-concept trial (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.10.21256982v...). Note that in the trial, 84% improved their cognitive scores, and even the MRIs improved. We are now doing a larger, randomized, controlled clinical trial. (2) We've published over 220 papers and 3 books; please read these before making silly comments. (3) AD has been completely untreatable, and the best data from pharma simply show a slight slowing of decline, not improvement or even stabilization. We've achieved improvement that has been sustained for years--the first patients started in 2012 and are still improved. So the complaints should take into account the alternatives. (4) How do you think medicine changes? A 100-million-dollar Phase 3 trial as the first step? Please. You need a model, then anecdotal, objective data, then a proof-of-concept trial, then a randomized controlled trial. We are doing all of that, step by step. If you have better results, please publish them; if not, don't impede progress, since there are millions in need. (5) The idea that we are using "fads" is ridiculous--we spent 30 years in the laboratory determining the molecular pathways that drive neurodegeneration, and we then translated those data into a workable clinical approach that has already achieved better clinical outcomes than any other approach. Admittedly it is not simple enough yet, but the disease is dictating the simplicity at this point; we have more work to do to prioritize and scale. (6) Our data and approach are simply systems medicine, and the pushback is coming from the stakeholders in outdated single pharmaceutical medicine--do you really believe that something as complicated as a human brain, beset by a disease as complicated as Alzheimer's, is going to be cured by a single small molecule? Ignoring the various pathways involved? Come on now, The Lancet can afford to act like idiots because they've been around for a while, but most of us need data and outcomes. (7) Our approach is simply to identify the drivers of decline (the current standard of care does not even look for them) and then target those. This type of network analysis is the future of medicine, and frankly it needs a lot more Silicon Valley input and a lot less pharma monotherapy influence. (8) The Alzheimer's field is experiencing many of the same issues as the Opioid Epidemic did--coercion, billions of dollars at stake, pharma-established infrastructure, and needless deaths. The recent FDA decision on aducanumab provides further evidence of this. Please look at the data and compare the various approaches, instead of accepting the opinions of the stakeholders at face value. Thanks.