lol, thanks for being concise!  :) :)

___
Rose: Up to the minute postings, fair and balanced.

I read a review of a book...can't recall the title.  The review said that one
point the book makes is that since about half of elderly over 85 have
Alzheimer's it's a "statistically normal part of aging."  I think, as others in
this thread said, that more people have Alzheimers than the stats suggest.  So
it's even more "normal" by that definition.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Alzheimer's is "normal" therefore not a
problem.  It is a momentous problem. If you define normal as "free of disease"
then no, Alzheimer's isn't normal, but if you define it as "very common for a
certain demographic" then I think one can argue that it IS.

Here is why I think this is important. Far from saying people shouldn't be
treated because it's normal, I think maybe if people saw Alz. as normal, they'd
be more likely to be treated.  If Alz. can be called "normal" then maybe people
will be less apt to blame others or themselves, and Alz. patients will be and
feel less stigmatized.  

Maybe normal is the wrong word.  Perhaps "very common" or "typical" or some
other word that makes it seem less like something visited on a few marginal
folks who "ate too much read meat" or "didn't learn a new foreign language
after age 65" or whatever they're saying these days that increases the risk
factor.

I'd compare it to something less awful, menstrual cramps.  Not all women get
them, and they are not necessary to menstruation, and those of us who get them
want to get rid of them either through prevention or treatment with pain pills,
but they are not "abnormal."  I don't have to feel stigmatized for telling my
doctor I get cramps.  (Tho there was a time when there was a stigma...we were
just being hysterical and resentful about being women instead of men.)  Women
shouldn't have to suffer from bad cramps and old people shouldn't have to
suffer from Alzheimers, but I think it's better to think of both as normal
maladies for which we should seek help.

___
Rose: Up to the minute postings, fair and balanced.

Very interesting, thanks.

<snip>

Or even mild dementia might have fatal consequences before it was noticed
that there was anything really wrong with their memory.  Forget to clean
your teeth, and soon you have trouble eating, with a sharp decline after
that. Forget you need a coat in winter, devlop bronchitis and fatal
pneumonia.

I remember seeing something on The Learning Channel a few months back, that
, after childbirth, a leading cause of death for women in the 16th and 17th
centuries was burning. Everyone here worried about a LO with AD fiddling
with a microwave or electric range -- imagine is they were tending an open
fire all day. It would take only minor cognitive impairment before that
became very dangerous.

Science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein wrote a number of stories starting
with a premise in a short story called Methuselah's Children, in which a
subset of people had been bred with much longer than nromal lifespans. One
of his premises was that longer-lived people would tend to be more
intelligent, and thus better to recognize and thus avoid potentially fatal
situations.  There's a ring of truth to that -- throughout history, impaired
reasoning ability could turn deadly very easily in a dangerous world.