Anabel Maldonado
Ippolito C Even
Current Event #19
March 17th, 2019
Chen, Angus. “An Hour of Light and Sound a Day Might Keep Alzheimer's at Bay.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 14 Mar. 2019, www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-hour-of-light-and-sound-a-day-might-keep-alzheimers-at-bay/.
When someone develops a disease, they begin taking prescribed drugs to help minimize the problem. However, what if I told you that there was a possible cure for Alzheimer's, and no drugs were needed… Recently, Michael Chen released an article that spoke about a discovery that could possibly cure alzheimer's. He stated that “Virtually all new treatments have failed in clinical trials. But new research is looking beyond drugs to see what relief might come from a simple LED light and a speaker.” Although this may seem crazy and unrealistic, there is reasoning to why this may work. The pulsing sounds and alterations in light could reverse certain signals in our brain that trigger Alzheimer's. They tested this discovery with mice (in 2015), and after dissecting the mice's’ brains they realized that the biological causes for Alzheimer's decreased. Also, they realized that the mice’s cognitive skills improved significantly as well. Although these lights and sounds could possibly be a solution to this traumatic disease, the scientists still do not fully understand why this could reverse the brain waves (that cause Alzheimer's). However, this discovery could help millions of lives and be a major breakthrough in science.
This discovery is life-changing and very beneficial for our society. Alzheimer's is a very prevalent and traumatic disease. In fact after doing outside research, according to Alzheimer’s Association “the most common cause of dementia, a general term for memory loss and other cognitive abilities serious enough to interfere with daily life. Alzheimer's disease accounts for 60 percent to 80 percent of dementia cases.” The fact that Alzheimer’s affects 60 to 80 percent of dementia emphasizes the attention this disease knows. Not only would this discovery help the people facing this disease, it would also benefit their families. In addition, the idea that a disease could be cured without medications (prescription drugs) is life-changing… if successful, this could be a breakthrough for our world scientifically.
Luke Freeman
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology Current Event 19 - Comment
March 19, 2019
Chen, Angus. “An Hour of Light and Sound a Day Might Keep Alzheimer's at Bay.” Scientific
American, Scientific American, 14 Mar. 2019,
www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-hour-of-light-and-sound-a-day-might-keep-alzheimers-at-bay/.
This article, reviewed well by Anabel Maldonado, is a touching, serious issue. For starters, Anabel did a great job at establishing the issue and giving the reader context about the article. Her summary is near-perfect in capturing the whole article, while keeping it brief. Secondly, in her explanatory section, she does a great job of bringing the reader back to the main premise of the article, as embodied by this statement, “Although these lights and sounds could possibly be a solution to this traumatic disease, the scientists still do not fully understand why this could reverse the brain waves (that cause Alzheimer's). However, this discovery could help millions of lives and be a major breakthrough in science”. This line was especially powerful as while continuing to explain this issue, she keeps the main focus of the article, that being potential ability to limit the creep of the infamous Alzheimer’s disease. Finally, Anabel does a solid job of utilizing specific examples in her review, which furthers her credibility as the analyst. This ensures the reader, such as myself, that what I am being told is true.
Only two small things stood out to me when reading Anabel’s review of the article, the first being her critique paragraph. I think it is unfair to call out Chen for including the information on the mouse. Also, Anabel saying that the information presented in the article is that life-altering is a bit of a stretch. The information that Chen is writing about is important as it discusses a topic that pertains to the well being of our species. Alzheimer's is a disease that has affected millions, and I am sure every person reading this article knows of someone impacted by the disease. However, the research is still in its earliest stages, so we have no idea whether or not the tests will come to fruition.
This article is relatively impactful as this research has the potential to affect every future human on the planet. The issue is interesting to me as I have always found research on diseases and their prevention to be very intriguing. The article reminds us just how little we know about our universe, as well as how much better technology, time, and funding we need to truly expand our knowledge on all diseases that afflict humans.
Emily Perry
ReplyDeleteMarch 19, 2019
APBio CE19
Chen, Angus. “An Hour of Light and Sound a Day Might Keep Alzheimer's at Bay.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 14 Mar. 2019, www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-hour-of-light-and-sound-a-day-might-keep-alzheimers-at-bay/.
The way that Anabel began her piece was very engaging: “When someone develops a disease, they begin taking prescribed drugs to help minimize the problem. However, what if I told you that there was a possible cure for Alzheimer's, and no drugs were needed”. I think this introduction shows Anabel’s effort to get her audience engaged and thinking about her topic. I also thought that Anabel did a really thorough job of summarizing her article. At the same time, she did not go into so much detail that it was difficult to follow what she was saying. I also like how in the second paragraph, instead of just describing the significance in terms of its broader impact on society and individuals, she supported her claim with statistics and goes into more detail to really show how the discovery will impact patients with Alzheimer's.
One thing that Anabel could improve upon is to make her criticism a bit more clear. I think that she brings up a very good point and should elaborate to better get her point across. I also think that she could alter her wording in certain areas, such as the middle of paragraph 2. While I could understand everything that Anabel said, she could refine the flow of her current event review by editing the wording of some areas. Overall, however, her current event was very well written and creative.
I am in awe about the fact that Alzheimer’s could possibly be cured without the use of drugs. This is a fascinating idea which, as Anabel explained in her review, could help so many people who suffer from Alzheimer’s. This has expanded my view of medical discoveries and helped me to believe that no new discovery or invention is impossible.
Jordan Hoang
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology C Even
3/25/19
Chen, Angus. “An Hour of Light and Sound a Day Might Keep Alzheimer's at Bay.” Scientific
American, Scientific American, 14 Mar. 2019,
www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-hour-of-light-and-sound-a-day-might-keep-alzheimers-at-bay/.
For this week’s current event, I read Anabel’s review regarding a new- and surprisingly simple- way of treating Alzheimer's. One aspect of her work that she did outstandingly well was creating interest for the readers. Lines such as “what if I told you that there was a possible cure for Alzheimer's, and no drugs were needed” were able to personalize and strengthen her review. In addition, I liked how Anabel went beyond the article and provided additional research, stating a statistic from the Alzheimer’s Association that this disease “accounts for 60 to 80 percent of dementia cases”. Finally, I enjoyed Anabel’s integration of sources and quotes throughout her review. They were well chosen, relevant points that were incorporated well into her piece.
Despite these strengths, I would recommend Anabel to make a slight few improvements. One thing I would point out is that she could have been a bit more specific regarding points she made in her piece. For one, she mentioned that “after dissecting the mice's’ brains they realized that the biological causes for Alzheimer's decreased”. Stating simply “biological causes” seemed a bit vague. It would have been helpful to be more specific about what scientists discovered to recognize that the causes of Alzheimer’s decreased . In addition, giving a short background on what Alzheimer's and dementia is while highlighting some of their effects would have been helpful for readers to understand the dramatic benefits to this new form of treatment.
It is always a great step forward in medicine when doctors are able to find drugs in order to treat extremely debilitating and prevalent diseases. However, I believe it's just as significant if we are able to find forms of treatment that are relatively simple -like the method that Anabel mentioned in her review. It would be extremely beneficial to everyone if we could have less invasive and less harmful procedures available to the public.
Anabel Maldonado’s review of “An Hour of Light and Sound a Day Might Keep Alzheimer’s at Bay” by Angus Chen, was very well-written. One aspect that was well written was her attention grabbing technique used in the summary paragraph: she gives a very broad, ordinary occurrence of taking a drug to treat a disease, and then uses “What if I told you…” to juxtapose that to the extraordinary feat of the article, which is that a certain frequency of light and sound may cure or seriously curb Alzheimer’s. Juxtaposition places emphasis on the information readers will find interesting, therefore making them interested in the article and the review. Additionally, Maldonado continues this motif later in the paragraph by acknowledging that this seems “crazy and unrealistic.” Doing this was smart because it keeps the attention of the reader, acknowledges skeptical opinions to increase her credibility, and provides structure to the paragraph so that the reader will be prepared for a new wave of information. Furthermore, she summarized all of the main points in a way that was specific enough to prepare the reader for all of the topics and subtopics of the article (ie that normal treatments haven’t been optimally successful, that the sound and light reversed certain genetically-induced flaws that build up during Alzheimer’s due to a dysfunctional immune response, that in doing so the therapy improved cognition, and lastly that scientists still don’t know exactly why this therapy works), while still being concise enough so that the specifics of each topic are not revealed too much before the reader has a chance to read the article (ie the exact flaws the therapy reverses, the mechanism the therapy uses to reverse the flaws, the “metronome effect”). Finally, Maldonado offers multiple insightful societal impacts, including one backed by her outside research, which both increases her credibility as a reviewer and heightens interest in the topic and the article by applying it to something bigger than just another illness (ie impact on family, the amount it plays into dementia).
ReplyDeleteThere are two very minor areas that could be improved in this review: firstly, Maldonado states that the therapy “reverses brain waves that cause Alzheimer’s.” This isn’t exactly true because at most, the light and sound therapy acts as a metronome that resets hyperactive neurons to a more steady beat - and this is only a proposed explanation. The main feat. of this therapy is that it reinvigorates the brain’s immune cells to remove tau protein tangles and beta amyloid plaques, so if she wanted to describe the mechanism in a little more detail, this is how she could state it in a more accurate way. Using an incorrect description may confuse the reader when he/she is reading the article, so it is important to make sure all material included is factually correct. Secondly, at the end, she refers to experiments near the end of the article that “make the reader lose interest.” In order for readers to judge for themselves whether this is enough of a weakness to deter them from reading the whole article, Maldonado should refer to what the exact experiments are that she is describing.
One revelation I had while reading this article is that complex DNA or technologically-based treatments may not always be the answer that drastically reduces or cures a disease. I chose this revelation because after reading an article about Alzheimer’s on Neuroscience News that described how machine learning algorithms could detect subtle glucose depletion trends - trends often too slow or subtle for humans to detect - indicative of the disease years out, I was initially skeptical that something as simple as light/sound therapy could have the same effect on reducing the disease. However, when I read the more complex rationale behind the theory, I became less skeptical because the relatively simple treatment had a complex and plausible explanation.
Caroline McGrath
ReplyDelete9/07/19
Current Event 1
Chen, Angus. “An Hour of Light and Sound a Day Might Keep Alzheimer's at Bay.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 14 Mar. 2019, www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-hour-of-light-and-sound-a-day-might-keep-alzheimers-at-bay/.
Anabel Maldonado’s review on Angus Chen’s “An Hour of Light and Sound a Day Might Keep Alzheimer’s at Bay”, was intriguing from the very beginning. The way she started her opening paragraph, saying “When someone develops a disease, they begin taking prescribed drugs to help minimize the problem. However, what if I told you that there was a possible cure for Alzheimer's, and no drugs were needed”, immediately interested me and made me want to read the rest of the review. Secondly, the way she summarized the article in her review, enticed the reader by giving relevant information and important facts about the discovery, without giving away too much, allowing the reader to still be able to read the article and gain even more understanding. Finally, I was impressed by the addition of information from other sources. When she quoted Alzheimer’s Association, it both gave more relevant information to the review, and offered another place to visit for more information about her article.
Although the review was very well written, there a few points, the middle of paragraph 2 specifically, where I think her wording needed to be clarified. Although it was conceivable and ultimately known what she was trying to say, it was not obvious. Another thing I think Anabel needed to do was describe more about the disease itself. She immediately jumps into how the lights and sounds might reverse the brain waves, she does not give an explanation as to the symptoms of Alzheimers or, more importantly to her review, the relationship your brain waves have to the disease.
I was left in awe after reading about this article; it amazes me how much the medical field has developed and still how much is being discovered. I chose this article because I have a relative who recently died of Alzheimers. Although the disease isn’t completely proven to be hereditary it is plausible that I will know someone else who is suffering from the disease, and hopefully with this new treatment, in a few decades it will be curable. This review changed the way I look at medical research, it makes me believe that we are capable of anything and that there are still so many cures being tested that soon we will have the answer to some of the deadliest diseases.
Olivia Conniff
ReplyDelete9/16/19
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event Comment #2
Chen, Angus. “An Hour of Light and Sound a Day Might Keep Alzheimer's at Bay.” Scientific
American, Scientific American, 14 Mar. 2019,
www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-hour-of-light-and-sound-a-day-might-keep-alzheimers-at-bay/.
The article, “An Hour of Light and Sound a Day Might Keep Alzheimer’s at Bay”, which Anabel Maldonado reviewed so well, discusses the new discovery that using an LED light and speaker might actually be able to sure Alzheimer’s better than any medication. It is described that pulsing sounds and alterations in light are able to reverse the signals in the brain that trigger Alzheimer’s. This was tested using mice, and after dissecting mice’s brains, they discovered that the biological causes of Alzheimer’s had decreased, and the mice’s cognitive skills had also improved. I thoroughly enjoyed reading Anabel’s review as it was informative while still being intriguing and entertaining, clear, concise and easy to understand. Anabel wrote, “When someone develops a disease, they begin taking prescribed drugs to help minimize the problem. However, what if I told you that there was a possible cure for Alzheimer's, and no drugs were needed”, which I found very intriguing as a reader, and made me want to continue reading. Anabel described how light and sound can treat Alzheimer’s clearly, and without confusing the reader. She wrote, “The pulsing sounds and alterations in light could reverse certain signals in our brain that trigger Alzheimer's”, which is extremely easy to understand, even for someone who does understand neuroscience very well.
While Anabel’s review is excellent, there are a few things that could be done to improve it further. First, I think that Anabel could have elaborated a bit more on her criticism of the article. She stated, “he spoke a lot about the experiments with mice which resulted in the audience losing interest towards the end”, and I wish she was a bit more clear about what the writer could have done to fix this problem. She suggested a solution but I didn’t quite understand it. Furthermore, I think Anabel should have included a bit more background information on the actual condition of Alzheimers, specifically what it is, what causes it, how it affects people, etc. I think this would have strengthened her review a lot but for the most part I think it was very well-written and informative.
Reading this review left me feeling informed but also hopeful for the future of Alzheimer’s treatments. Alzheimer’s is a terrible disease that affects so many in such horrible ways. It really makes me happy to know that alternative treatments are being discovered that could potentially really help people in this condition. I also think that the treatment itself and the way that it reverses signals in the brain is extremely interesting. The treatment seems to be simple, not painful at all for the recipient, and overall easy to administer, which is a huge step for people who suffer from Alzheimer’s. Reading Anabel’s review really helped me develop a more open-mind when it comes to different medical treatments, and how simple they can actually be while still effective.