Googling the good doctor and the study finds the following items about the
study:

-- Very small study group (101 patients initially, but they only followed up
at 3-months with 82 of them).

-- 'Loeb said there is a theory that a common bacteria that causes pneumonia
might play a role in causing Alzheimer's, but the antibiotics study found no
evidence that levels of the bacteria (C. pneumoniae) were reduced as
significantly as would be expected (if C. pneumoniae were an aggravating
factor).'

No reduction of any supposed causative bacteria - doesn't support the idea
that it's infection that's being treated. Further, in the second report
cited below, the speculation was that C. pneumoniae was not a 'cause' of AD,
but an 'exacerbating factor' - and the researchers and commentators said
even that did not appear to be the case.  Now, having watched the cognitive
impact when my father suffered pneumonia (BOOP - an autoimmune pneumonia) a
few years ago, I can see how a mild chronic case of pneumonia might
exacerbate AD, but that's a far cry from claims that AD itself is an
infectious disease or can be cured by antibiotic treatment.

-- 'He suggested that the antibiotics may work by interfering with the
buildup of plaques around neurons in the brain that are a hallmark of
Alzheimer's. It is also possible that the anti-inflammatory effects of the
antibiotics are critical.'

In other words, there's no evidence antibiotics are working *as*
antibiotics, but  they may be working as anti-inflammatory drugs, as has
been mentioned is being done for inflammatory arthritis, or as a
plaque-buildup interfering agent.

-- 'The trial found that mental scores of those in the placebo group
declined by an average of 2.75 points more over six months than those who
received the antibiotic, out of a 70-point scale. At 12 months, there was
still a difference between the groups, but it was not considered
significant. '

2.75 points out of a 70-point scale is just under a 4% difference.  The
advantage was short term - at 3- and 6-months, there was that lessening of
decline, but by 12-months the difference in decline was 'not considered
significant.'  That the effect goes when the treatment is discontinued
argues for an anti-inflammatory effect rather than wiping out some causative
bug.

But there's some improvement, even if it's short term, so why not do more of
it?  Well:

-- 'When antibiotics are overused, bacteria mutate and become resistant to
drugs. This creates so-called "super-bugs" that cannot be treated.'

-- 'This is of particular concern to seniors and, more specifically, to
Alzheimer's sufferers, who are already more susceptible to infectious
disease. Antibiotics can also interact with other medication and cause liver
damage.'

So giving antibiotics to elderly and infirm people for a brief slowing of
their decline could result in them being at greater risk for infection
later.  How many times in the past few months have I read of the AD relative
of someone on this newsgroup being brought down by pneumonia?  Should we
increase their risk of precisely the variety of common infectious pneumonia
the tested antibiotics target, for a 6-month, 4-percent respite in the
progression of the dementia?  I think someone in their right mind can very
confidently argue no.

Dr. Loeb is not a quack.  He isn't claiming there's some secret infection
causing AD; he's not claiming antibiotics are a cure, or hold the potential
for a cure:

-- 'Antibiotics are certainly not a cure for Alzheimer's, Mark Loeb, an
assistant professor of clinical epidemiology and biostatistics at McMaster
and lead author of the research, said the "antibiotic regimen might allow a
person suffering from Alzheimer's disease to remain home and avoid going to
a nursing home or another institution, at least for a period of time." '

Sources:
http://www.alzstl.org/news%20items/Antibiotics_and_Alzheimer's.htm
http://www.chlamydiae.com/news/news.asp?55
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031008.walzh1008/BNStory/N
ational/

And in contrast: http://www.drmirkin.com/index.html

I looked at his homepage and realized who Dr. Gabe Mirkin is!  His
syndicated radio show used to be on locally - I remember it because this guy
told almost every caller that antibiotics were the answer to their medical
problems! 'Dr. Mirkin, I have a broken arm...' 'You should be on 300mg of
doxycycline...' 'Dr. Mirkin, I'm having erectile dysfunction...' 'Treat it
with Biaxin...') He really is a quack, rightly criticized by other doctors
for claiming that all sorts of autoimmune disorders are really hidden
infections. Mirkin's page on using antibiotics to treat AD:

--Omits any mention of the temporary nature of the results described in the
responsible reports on the Loeb study;

-- Dismisses as 'ineffective' all of the accepted drugs for AD because they
only 'slow the rate of brain damage only a little bit and do not stop
progression of brain damage,' though that's the same result found in the
Loeb study for antibiotics - but the antibiotics' effect was shorter-lived;

-- Makes unsupported claims that 'Several studies associate Alzheimer's
disease with infections caused by the bacteria chlamydia and mycoplasma,'
though Loeb didn't make the claim, and the chlamydia specialists cited in
the responsible literature on the Loeb report said there was no evidence of
any relation.

In other words, he ignores facts from the report that don't support his
antibiotic-panacea dogma.  A plonkable offense in my book.

--
Robert

:  The guy is .Dr. Mark Loeb, associate professor at McMaster University
:  in Hamilton, Ontario and he presented a study in San Diego at the
:  meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (10/9/03)
:  Should we stop studies because you think in your opinion this guy is
:  quackers or whatever. New studies have to be done. Can you in your
:  right mind disagree with this?

Why does your followup to my post pose these silly questions to me?

Looks like Dennis is right (again).  IHBT.