Alzheimer's research at risk as diagnoses rise
Why it matters: As Alzheimer's diagnoses rise, the federal funding for medical research that's critical to preventing and treating it is at risk of being cut.
State of play: Over 17,300 Californians die from Alzheimer's every year, but addressing cognitive decline early can help stave off the disease.
That's especially important with San Diego County's growing senior population — about 16% of residents.
Zoom in: The odds of being diagnosed with Alzheimer's is higher in San Diego than many other parts of the country, at least in part because of the local hospital system.
That doesn't necessarily mean more people have the disease, but more thorough diagnosing can lead to more cases, better care, new tests and treatments.
Between the lines: UC San Diego has the top NIH-funded neuroscience department in the country, and the university's Alzheimer's Disease Research Center is developing potential treatments, monitoring drug safety and running clinical trials aimed at prevention.
That federal funding is at risk of being pulled, which center director Jim Brewer has said would "absolutely cut the knees out" and could delay progress in addressing the disease, particularly through clinical trials.
The latest: The FDA on Friday cleared the first blood test to help diagnose the disease, which could help with early detection.
By the numbers: About 12% of Californians over 65 are living with Alzheimer's, per 2020 data in the report.
That's almost 720,000 people.
At 15%, Imperial County had the ninth-highest prevalence in the country.
Zoom out: The highest rates of seniors with Alzheimer's are in D.C. (16.8%), Maryland (12.9%) and New York (12.7%), according to the association.
Nearly two-thirds of all Americans diagnosed with the disease are women, per data cited in the report. UCSD researchers are currently trying to figure out why.
Warning signs to watch for in high-risk age groups:
Trouble finding the right word.
Difficulty judging distances.
Misplacing things and struggling to retrace steps.
Be smart: Keeping your brain on its toes, so to speak, can help prevent dementia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
18 minutes ago
- New York Post
Sorry, Fido: New evidence suggests pet ownership may not be as beneficial to health as we thought
Your furry friend might not be the answer to a ruff life. Canine companionship has long been touted as a remedy for people seeking comfort and connection, particularly when pandemic-era lockdowns kept millions apart. But new research suggests that even in times of extreme social isolation, having a pet doesn't always improve well-being — and sometimes, it makes it worse. Advertisement 5 Studies show 65.1 million American households own at least one dog. – The study analyzed data from nearly 3,000 Hungarians, collected over several months in 2020 by researchers at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. Among the participants, 65 acquired a pet while 75 lost one, prompting the team to examine how these changes affected their well-being over time. The results? Not exactly tail-wagging. Advertisement Researchers found new pet owners experienced a short-lived boost in cheerfulness after bringing a dog home — but that initial high didn't last. Over time, their calmness, life satisfaction, cheerfulness and activity levels dropped. 5 Interacting with a dog has previously been shown to lower levels of cortisol, the body's stress hormone. Svetlana – Advertisement 'What surprised me most was that new pet in the household had no effect on the respondents' loneliness,' Judit Mokos, a data scientist and one of the paper's first authors, said in a statement. 'Our research suggests that dogs do not provide a real solution to loneliness; rather, they make the new owners more anxious,' she added. Even more surprising: losing a pet didn't affect the well-being of their former owners. Advertisement 'It appears that, at least during stressful periods, the average person, who may not be the primary caregiver but simply shares a household with the pet, is not significantly affected by the pet's loss, nor is their well-being a strong predictor of the decision to acquire one,' said Ádám Miklósi, who initiated the data collection on companion animals. These findings cast doubt on earlier studies suggesting dog ownership offers a wide range of health benefits, including reducing stress and anxiety, building social connections, increasing physical activity and lowering blood pressure and cholesterol. 5 Research suggests the companionship of dogs isn't a complete replacement for human social interaction. yurakrasil – 'Based on the data, most people living together with a companion animal do not seem to experience any long-term 'pet effect,' nor do they bond strongly with their animal,' said Eniko Kubinyi, head of the MTA-ELTE 'Momentum' Companion Animals Research Group. 'It is possible that the dynamics of the pandemic have led many to make impulsive choices against their long-term interest, or that only certain groups — like devoted animal lovers or older adults living alone — truly benefit from pets in stressful times,' she added. The loneliness epidemic Loneliness became a bigger problem during the coronavirus pandemic, but studies suggest half of American adults had already experienced it before the outbreak. 5 Millions of Americans are affected by depression, anxiety and other mental health challenges. Tinnakorn – And the social fallout didn't end when lockdowns did. Research shows that many people, especially teens, young adults and seniors, continued to spend more time at home and less time socializing than before the public health crisis. Advertisement In fact, a 2024 study by the American Psychiatric Association found that 30% of adults felt lonely at least once a week last year, with 10% battling loneliness every single day. That's a bigger problem than many realize. Studies show chronic loneliness can increase the risk of premature death as much as 15 cigarettes a day. It's linked to heart disease, stroke, cognitive decline, inflammation and a weakened immune system. Loneliness is also strongly associated with depression, anxiety, stress and low self-esteem. Advertisement In 2023, then-Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared that 'loneliness, isolation, and lack of connection in our country' are an 'epidemic' and a 'public health crisis.' 5 The loneliness epidemic has affected older adults in particular. Angelov – At last year's Aspen Ideas Festival, Murthy shared three simple daily actions to help Americans rebuild their social connections. Advertisement First, spend 15 minutes each day reaching out to someone you care about. 'We have built this cultural narrative over the years that success is about being independent and being independent is about not needing anyone,' Murthy said. 'That is something we fundamentally have to change.' Second, when you're with others, shelve distractions and give them your full attention. 'Five minutes of being fully present with someone in conversation is more powerful than 30 minutes of distracted conversation,' he explained. Advertisement Finally, make daily acts of service a priority. 'Service is a very powerful antidote to loneliness, because it not only helps us connect — whether it's in the act of helping one person or helping a community — but it reminds us that we have value to bring to the world,' Murthy said.
UPI
21 minutes ago
- UPI
Pop, soda or coke? The fizzy history behind a linguistic debate
The word you use generally boils down to where you're from: Midwesterners enjoy a good pop, while soda is tops in the North and far West. Southerners, long the cultural mavericks, don't bat an eyelash asking for coke -– lowercase. Photo by Vika_Glitter/ Pixabay With burgers sizzling and classic rock thumping, many Americans revel in summer cookouts -- at least until that wayward cousin asks for a "pop" in soda country, or even worse, a "coke" when they actually want a Sprite. Few American linguistic debates have bubbled quite as long and effervescently as the one over whether a generic soft drink should be called a soda, pop or coke. The word you use generally boils down to where you're from: Midwesterners enjoy a good pop, while soda is tops in the North and far West. Southerners, long the cultural mavericks, don't bat an eyelash asking for coke -- lowercase -- before homing in on exactly the type they want: Perhaps a root beer or a Coke, uppercase. As a linguist who studies American dialects, I'm less interested in this regional divide and far more fascinated by the unexpected history behind how a fizzy "health" drink from the early 1800s spawned the modern soft drink's many names and iterations. Bubbles, anyone? Foods and drinks with wellness benefits might seem like a modern phenomenon, but the urge to create drinks with medicinal properties inspired what might be called a soda revolution in the 1800s. The process of carbonating water was discovered in the late 1700s. By the early 1800s, this carbonated water had become popular as a health drink and was often referred to as "soda water." The word "soda" likely came from "sodium," since these drinks often contained salts, which were then believed to have healing properties. Given its alleged curative effects for health issues such as indigestion, pharmacists sold soda water at soda fountains, innovative devices that created carbonated water to be sold by the glass. A chemistry professor, Benjamin Stillman, set up the first such device in a drugstore in New Haven, Conn., in 1806. Its eventual success inspired a boom of soda fountains in drugstores and health spas. By the mid-1800s, pharmacists were creating unique root-, fruit- and herb-infused concoctions, such as sassafras-based root beer, at their soda fountains, often marketing them as cures for everything from fatigue to foul moods. These flavored, sweetened versions gave rise to the linking of the word "soda" with a sweetened carbonated beverage, as opposed to simple, carbonated water. Seltzer - today's popular term for such sparkling water - was around, too. But it was used only for the naturally carbonated mineral water from the German town Nieder-Selters. Unlike Perrier, sourced similarly from a specific spring in France, seltzer made the leap to becoming a generic term for fizzy water. Regional naming patterns So how did "soda" come to be called so many different things in different places? It all stems from a mix of economic enterprise and linguistic ingenuity. The popularity of "soda" in the Northeast likely reflects the soda fountain's longer history in the region. Since a lot of Americans living in the Northeast migrated to California in the mid-to-late 1800s, the name likely traveled west with them. As for the Midwestern preference for "pop" -- well, the earliest American use of the term to refer to a sparkling beverage appeared in the 1840s in the name of a flavored version called "ginger pop." Such ginger-flavored pop, though, was around in Britain by 1816, since a Newcastle songbook is where you can first see it used in text. The "pop" seems to be onomatopoeic for the noise made when the cork was released from the bottle before drinking. Linguists don't fully know why "pop" became so popular in the Midwest. But one theory links it to a Michigan bottling company, Feigenson Brothers Bottling Works -- today known as Faygo Beverages -- that used "pop" in the name of the sodas it marketed and sold. Another theory suggests that because bottles were more common in the region, soda drinkers were more likely to hear the "pop" sound than in the Northeast, where soda fountains reigned. As for using coke generically, the first Coca-Cola was served in 1886 by Dr. John Pemberton, a pharmacist at Jacobs' Pharmacy in Atlanta and the founder of the company. In the 1900s, the Coca-Cola Co. tried to stamp out the use of "Coke" for "Coca-Cola." But that ship had already sailed. Since Coca-Cola originated and was overwhelmingly popular in the South, its generic use grew out of the fact that people almost always asked for "Coke." As with Jell-O, Kleenex, Band-Aids and seltzer, it became a generic term. What's soft about it? Speaking of soft drinks, what's up with that term? It was originally used to distinguish all nonalcoholic drinks from "hard drinks," or beverages that contain spirits. Interestingly, the original Coca-Cola formula included wine -- resembling a type of alcoholic "health" drink popular overseas, Vin Mariani. But Pemberton went on to develop a "soft" version a few years later to be sold as a medicinal drink. Due to the growing popularity of soda water concoctions, eventually "soft drink" came to mean only such sweetened carbonated beverages, a linguistic testament to America's enduring love affair with sugar and bubbles. With the average American guzzling almost 40 gallons per year, you can call it whatever you what. Just don't call it healthy. Valerie M. Fridland is a professor of Linguistics at the University of Nevada-Reno. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Tom's Guide
2 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
RFK Jr. wants every American to be wearing a fitness tracker within 4 years — here's what we know so far
The best fitness trackers can tell you a lot about your overall health — designed to be worn 24/7, they'll track your heart rate, daily activity levels, calories burned, and how well you sleep. And now, US Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he'd like to see every American wearing some form of health or fitness device by 2029. 'My vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years,' he said at a congressional hearing last week. It was announced, his department will soon begin one of 'the biggest campaigns in HHS history,' which it says will help Americans 'take control over their own health.' We don't know the details just yet. It isn't clear, for example, whether the government will subsidize existing devices to make them more affordable or release a Trump-branded health tracker, following the recent Trump phone. During the congressional hearing, Kennedy Jr. said that his agency, which is behind the 'Make America Healthy Again', or MAHA, movement, is exploring ways to make the cost of blood glucose monitors more accessible. He also suggested that an $80 wearable might be a better solution to the weight-loss drug Ozempic for controlling diabetes and weight, describing friends who 'lost their diabetes' after wearing glucose monitors. Evidence shows diet and exercise changes can reverse Type 2 diabetes, and that glucose monitoring can be effective in motivating patients to make better decisions. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. At the time of writing, we don't have a lot of information about what this campaign might look like, but questions have been raised about the safety of users' health data. Would the government or insurance providers have access to our fitness tracker data? And how would our privacy be protected? It's also worth noting that while fitness trackers are an excellent resource, they won't be suitable for everyone. It's estimated that 28.8 million Americans will suffer from an eating disorder in their lifetime, and psychologists have tracked a recent rise in orthorexia, body dysmorphia, and anxiety. These disorders can all be aggravated by the influx of data you receive while wearing a fitness tracker. On the surface, however, fitness trackers have the potential to help you make healthier choices and gain a deeper understanding of your overall health. Trackers like the Apple Watch will alert you if it detects an irregular heart rhythm, which could save your life. But this isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, and a fitness tracker can never replace guidance from medical professionals. Ultimately, fitness trackers are only a piece of the health puzzle, and right now, we have more questions than answers
