If it turns out that driving a Prius on Tuesdays slows down Alzheimer’s, a larger pool of subjects would allow us to figure that out.

If astronomers announced that a large asteroid might strike Earth in twenty years, and that we currently had no way to deflect it, nobody would respond by saying, “Come back when you already have the rocket.” We would immediately build better telescopes to track it precisely, refine its trajectory models, and begin developing propulsion systems capable of interception. You do not wait for the cure before improving the measurement. You improve the measurement so that a cure becomes possible, targeted, and effective.

Medicine is no different. Refusing to improve early, probabilistic diagnosis because today’s treatments are modest confuses sequence with outcome. Breakthroughs do not emerge from vague labels and mixed populations. They emerge from precise, quantitative stratification that allows real effects to be seen. The danger is not that we measure too early. It is that we continue making irreversible clinical and research decisions using imprecise, binary classifications while biological insight and therapeutic tools are advancing rapidly. Building the probabilistic layer now is not premature. It is how we make future intervention feasible.

Left untreated for a very long time (decade+), it spreads to the brain and causes dementia among other things. Older generations with stigmas, taboos, or from lower educational backgrounds seem (to me) less likely to get tested, so it seems plausible.

Source: Have recently discovered this myself with a family member from their neurologist.

"A narrative review on the effects of a ketogenic diet on patients with Alzheimer's disease"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S127977072...

"Effects of ketogenic diet on cognitive function of patients with Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis"

And anecdotes from the field:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86CFw0qhVc

Revolutionizing Assisted Living: Hal Cranmer's Ketogenic & Carnivore Approach to Senior Wellness / Metabolic Mind

One of interesting checks in this study might be to check when (if) any of the participants had taken this vax and what the impact might be on an Alzimer's diagnosis.

If you have a prevalence of 10 in 1000, how do the numbers shake out?

Well, you test all 1,000. If we assume a 95% accuracy for false-positive and false negatives?

Of the 990 that you test that don't have the disease, the test will false state 50 do have the disease. Yikes!

And of the 10 that do have the disease? You'll miss 1 of them.