> Which would explain why current treatments don't really work ... [they] at best slow the rate of decline

This is called working! I am struck by the double-standard applied to assessing treatment options for Alzheimer's vs cancers. Many (most?) Stage IV cancers are incurable, and the main goal of treatment is to slow progression of the disease. Adding years to patients' lives is absolutely worth it, assuming the side effects are not overwhelming and the costs are not prohibitive.

To wit: Moderna added ~30B to its market cap on the news that it observed _statistically significant_ improvement in its primary endpoint for treating metastatic melanoma. Great! I'm as excited about this development as anyone. A new treatment option for a terrible disease that meaningfully improves on the current standard of care (Keytruda). Sadly, Stage IV melanoma is still considered terminal, and no one suggested that Moderna changed that.

Why not reset expectations for Alzheimer's? If we manage to slow its development enough so that most patients (who tend to be elderly) would die of other causes while maintaining decent quality of life, that's a win in my book.