Goodnight 1

Cole Goodnight

Malaka Friedman

English 101

13 March 2019

A Review of Alternative Approaches to the Search for Alzheimer’s Disease Treatments

The search for an Alzheimer’s cure has been a focus in many medical research companies

since the 1900s with little success. As more research has gone into the causes, effects, and origin

of the disease, little proportional knowledge and understanding of Alzheimer’s has come out.

Along with these shortcomings in an understanding of the disease, comes the failure of a medical

cure to the disease. As more and more drugs fail to pass FDA approval in clinical trials, some

people have started to investigate other possible, less traditional medicines, such as berries. This

logic that past failures determine no possible future success for traditional medicine and their

research of alternative medicine is the focus of the paper “Alternative Approaches to the Search

for Alzheimer’s Disease Treatments” as the authors investigate the medicinal qualities of the

Heteromeles arbutifolia berry. The research, citations, argument, and paper are almost as

alternative as their herbal remedy for the complex Alzheimer’s disease; the multitude of

problems surrounding this paper greatly discredit it. The paper complies to research paper

standards and has some reasoning and evidence to back up their claims, but there are many holes

in the text such as logical fallacies, bad research, questionable citations, and title issues.

This journal starts off with a bold title: Alternative Approaches to the Search for

Alzheimer’s Disease Treatments. The average reader is already a little bit skeptical of this paper

because of the connotation of the word “alternative”. Alternative medicines such as the herbal
 Goodnight 2

medicine this article focuses on are less effective than traditional medicines if they work at all

(Firenzuoli & Gorio, 2007). Alternative medicines in general are often looked down upon as a

society because of their association with fake medicines that do not work. Due to this title word

choice they already need to steady their paper with some solid research and analysis. The title is

also overlong because “to the search for” could be taken out. Without this unnecessary addition

to their title, it would be easier and quicker to read. Often in scientific literature, the author will

use a more complex diction or lengthen sentences more than necessary in order to sound more

sophisticated; this process is seen in the title. This method can hide a lack of real information and

should be avoided; conciseness is valued in scientific articles. This title is overall well fitting for

this paper because the authors go against the traditional medicine path and the accepted causes

and medicinal focuses of Alzheimer’s disease. While the title is well fitting for the article, it does

not make their argument more effective because of their poor word choice.

The authors of this article do not have any obvious problems that relate to their credibility

as researchers or publishers. Most of them have past published articles or journals, which makes

them more experienced as researchers, writers, and published scientists. If this was the first

publication for all of them, it would seem less reputable and likely would not be as well written.

They claim to have no conflicts of interest which also makes their information more credible due

to a decrease in bias from outside influences. One possible conflict of interest could come from

their past publications that are related to this research, but this and some of their past works are

sponsored by well-known organizations that are reputable and not biased. The authors all have

backgrounds in pharmaceuticals or neurology, so they seem qualified to research and publish

information on a neurological disease. The research from this article was supported by the

National Institute of Health which is a very established medical organization which is unlikely to
 Goodnight 3

cause bias. This does add some ethos to their research because of the good standing of national

organizations, especially the National Institute of Health. This support could be partially due to

past research that has shown some promise for these berries (Wang et al., 2016). They are not

just choosing to research this plant based on old Native American folklore and medicine, but also

based on a promising chemical composition with possible benefits in relation to Alzheimer’s

disease. Overall, the authors seem very credible and unbiased so there are some expectations for

them.

When looking broadly at the layout of the paper, it does match most of the standards

pretty well. The font choice and size are not unusual being Arial and the size can be changed in

the site I viewed the article on. These are both professional and help the paper look strong from a

glance. The paper does have the standard abstract and keywords for a scientific paper as well as

sections with different foci. These all are important standards to meet for a scientific paper

because they make it easier to read, understand, and analyze due to the common formatting.

Meeting these standards is important to be considered a scientific journal article. While it meets

most of the general rules, this paper does not meet an unspoken length requirement for scientific

journals. The paper is only one thousand words long, not including citations, which is

disappointingly short for a professional, sponsored research paper. Most scientific articles,

especially ones with this strong of a stance, are longer due to lengthy explanations of their logic

and their process for any experiment or trial. This paper does include many citations to try to

back up their argument, but they do not elaborate as much as they should on their own analysis

and logic or how these sources back them up. Their explanation of Alzheimer’s disease and the

past failures of traditional medicines makes up the majority of the paper and even this is not well

analyzed. The reasoning and explanation of their own medicine’s effectiveness is even shorter,
 Goodnight 4

and therefore even less supported; they do not elaborate any more on their medicine than they do

in their past research paper. They say, “We have recently studied the chemistry and safety of the

plant” and then present a diagram with chemical structures found in the berries never elaborating

any more on why this might help patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Lien et al., 2018). Since

science is about facts not opinions, it needs extensive proof and evidence for something like this

article to be accepted; and it seems this article does not provide the necessary requirement by

itself.

The citations used in this article are mostly good sources with reputable authors, but

some are questionable in their value and credibility. Out of the twenty-eight sources, eight of

them are co-authored by authors of this very article. Using work written by themselves in a

citation is not very credible and does not strengthen their argument as much as bringing a strong

outside source would have. While it is acceptable for them to cite themselves once or twice

because past research does happen to apply very well, it is not okay when they cite their own

authors as almost a third of their sources. This stops the advancement of research and science, for

example the final closing paragraph about the actual medicine they are presenting is even less

informative than the previous article and does not develop any new ideas. If someone cannot find

other people that agree with them, that is normally for a reason; either their argument is weak,

they have groundbreaking research and opinions, or they did not put enough effort into research.

While some of their sources are questionable, the other sources are good, relevant sources that

are used in the paper to support their argument. Some of the sources were about the possible

causes of Alzheimer’s disease and others explained past drug failures, which is very relevant to

their argument. For example, they used an article titled “Vascular contributions to cognitive

impairment and dementia” which backs up their previous point about the possible causes of
 Goodnight 5

Alzheimer’s disease and reflects their method for citing much of their research. Most of the

sources used in this paper are strong, relevant sources that enhance their argument, but citing

themselves so much hurt the reputability; overall their citations do help their paper, just not as

much as they could have.

The argument that alternative medicines should be considered for possible cures or

treatments to Alzheimer’s disease is based off the failures of past medicines. The core of their

argument is a logical fallacy; it is a hasty generalization. The past failures alone do not mean that

traditional medical approaches will not work in curing Alzheimer’s disease. For any medicine it

is “found that approximately one in ten (10.4%, n = 5,820) of all indication development paths in

phase 1 were approved by FDA” meaning the chances of being approved are small, especially

for a more complex medicine and disease (Hay et al., 2014). Even fewer medicines get through

the next two phases of FDA approval so it is entirely reasonable that 13 Alzheimer’s disease

medicines have failed to get approved. There has been extensive research that supports

traditional medical approaches and the failures of medicines in trials now are expected for such a

complex disease. Future drugs that either prevent the formation of or destroy beta amyloids

should, according to the Stanford University School of Medicine, prevent or cure Alzheimer’s

disease (Goldman, 2013). The very premise of this paper in undermined by basic research into

drug approval and the cause of Alzheimer’s disease as well as a deeper logical analysis of their

argument.

There is some legitimacy in their paper, for their description of Alzheimer’s disease is

accurate and supported by research to an extent, and the heteromeles arbutifolia berries do have

some chemicals within them that could have positive effects for the disease. They state that

Alzheimer’s disease is not just beta amyloid build up, but also an inflammation of the brain and
 Goodnight 6

deterioration of the blood-brain barrier (Lien et al. 2018). This information is supported not only

by multiple sources that they use, but by other research as well; The Lancet Neurology state that

“External factors, including systemic inflammation and obesity, are likely to interfere with

immunological processes of the brain and further promote disease progression.” so they support

the claim that inflammation of the brain further progresses Alzheimer’s disease(Heneka et al

2015). So, a major component of Alzheimer’s disease is an inflammation of the brain and

destruction of the blood brain barrier, but much research says that these are the effects of the

buildup of beta amyloids (Goldman 2013) (Heneka et al 2015). While what they are saying is not

wrong, the authors of Alternative Approaches to the Search for Alzheimer’s Disease Treatments

are being intentionally misleading. This falsification tremendously hurts their argument and

creates a distrust of their research. The sliver of saving light for this research paper is that the

berries do seem to have chemicals which have positive effects for Alzheimer's disease patients.

They cite some previous research of the chemical composition of the berries in which they

analyze the compounds and their relation to the disease; it has flavonoids that help with

prevention, icariside compounds that protect the blood brain barrier, lupeol acetate is an anti-

inflammatory, and betulin that might help decrease protein and fat build up(Wang et al 2015).

While there is not enough evidence to say that these berries will cure Alzheimer’s disease,

creating a medicine using the chemicals in them could very well help reduce the horrible effects

of the disease (Firenzuoli, Gorio, 2007). While more research should have been done on the

actual berries, and their argument was misinforming, hurting their argument, the actual berries

seem to have some merit.

Scientific papers are always under heavy scrutiny and must be very well written and

researched to be accepted. Presentation, research, and results and the key factors of a research
 Goodnight 7

paper, the stronger these three areas are, the more informative, reputable, and beneficial. If a

paper can present an idea in a concise, informative way with strong, reputable research, and then

elaborate on the results and possible application of these results then it is a strong research paper.

This paper failed to accomplish these tasks. Their presentation as far as tables and structure was

strong, but the actual text was misinforming and short, a fair amount of their sources were not

reputable, their argument was weak due to poor research and a logical fallacy, and their results

were poorly explained while it seemed they could have been on to something. Overall, the paper

failed to support their argument or to present it clearly.

 Goodnight 8

Works Cited

Firenzuoli, Fabio, and Luigi Gori. “Herbal Medicine Today: Clinical and Research Issues.”

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 4, no. s1, 2007, pp. 37–

40., doi:10.1093/ecam/nem096.

Hay, M., Thomas, D. W., Craighead, J. L., Economides, C., & Rosenthal, J. (2014). Clinical

development success rates for investigational drugs. Nature Biotechnology, 32(1), 40-51.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1038/nbt.2786

Heneka, Michael T, et al. “Neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's Disease.” The Lancet Neurology,

vol. 14, no. 4, 2015, pp. 388–405., doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(15)70016-5.

Lien, Eric, et al. “Alternative Approaches to the Search for Alzheimer’s Disease Treatments.” J,

vol. 1, no. 1, 2018, pp. 2–7., doi:10.3390/j1010002.

News Center. “Scientists Reveal How Beta-Amyloid May Cause Alzheimer's.” EHR National

Symposium, med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2013/09/scientists-reveal-how-beta-amyloid-

may-cause-alzheimers.html.

Wang, Xiaogang, et al. “Heteromeles Arbutifolia, a Traditional Treatment for Alzheimer’s

Disease, Phytochemistry and Safety.” Medicines, vol. 3, no. 3, 2016, p. 17.,

doi:10.3390/medicines3030017.