Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / December 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Alzheimers

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Joel M. Eichen - 24 Dec 2004 13:53 GMT
Posted on Fri, Dec. 24, 2004




Your nose can predict Alzheimer's, study says

Penn research links risk to ability to detect smells.

By Stacey Burling

Inquirer Staff Writer

The inability to identify the smell of lemons, lilacs and eight other
common scents predicts who is most likely to get Alzheimer's disease,
according to new research.

People who failed to recognize these scents were at higher risk for
developing Alzheimer's disease than those with more discriminating
noses, the study found.

Researchers measured how well people with mild cognitive impairment -
memory problems that often precede Alzheimer's - could smell. Those
who misidentified more than two of the 10 scents were nearly five
times more likely to progress to Alzheimer's than those who did
better, said Richard Doty, director of the University of
Pennsylvania's Smell and Taste Center.

Doty developed a 40-item, multiple-choice scratch-and-sniff test that
New York researchers used in the study. Their goal was to see whether
a shorter exam could just as effectively weed out people likely to
develop more serious memory problems.

D.P. Devanand, a Columbia University psychiatrist who led the study,
said that the shorter smell test was comparable to memory tests and
outperformed MRI scans of brain volumes at predicting which patients
would progress to Alzheimer's.

In the future, when better treatments are available, this kind of test
could help patients combat the disease earlier in its course, Devanand
said.

Doctors have known for years that people with Alzheimer's disease have
impaired olfactory function, Doty said. That is probably because
Alzheimer's first attacks the part of the brain that controls ability
to smell.

The University of Pennsylvania test is in use in thousands of clinics
throughout the world, said Doty, who participated in the Columbia
study. He also owns Sensonics, a company that sells the test.

"It's sort of the eye chart of the nose," he said.

The test is meant to be fairly easy for people with a normal sense of
smell, Doty said. Test takers, for example, are asked if they are
smelling lemon or motor oil, lilac or whiskey.

Doty estimates that 25 scientific papers have been written on the
connection between performance on the olfactory exam and Alzheimer's.

In Devanand's research, presented this month at the American College
of Neuropsychopharmacology annual meeting, the other scents that best
predicted Alzheimer's were: strawberry, soap, smoke, menthol, clove,
pineapple, natural gas and leather. Another five were poor predictors
because people with Alzheimer's did as well normal people. They are:
cheddar cheese, lime, grass, orange and fruit punch.

Beverly J. Cowart, a psychologist who directs the Monell Chemical
Senses Center in Philadelphia, said doctors would probably always need
more than the scent test for diagnosis because the sense of smell is
also impaired in Parkinson's and Huntington's disease and in old age
in general. Viruses, sinus disease, and exposure to certain chemicals
also mess up the olfactory system.

"Smell testing may be a useful adjunct in diagnosis, but I don't think
it's ever going to be the bedrock of a diagnosis of Alzheimer's," she
said.

Impaired smelling ability may also predict who develops schizophrenia,
said Paul Moberg, a University of Pennsylvania psychologist who
studies smell and the severe psychiatric disease.

Even early in the course of schizophrenia, which usually becomes
noticeable in late adolescence or early adulthood, the ability to
detect and identify scents is diminished, he said. The problem worsens
over time.

An Australian researcher recently found that patients at risk for
schizophrenia were more likely to develop the disease if they had
trouble identifying scents.

The part of the brain responsible for smelling, the olfactory bulb, is
smaller in schizophrenics than in other people, Moberg said. Nasal
cavities are also smaller in people with the disease, he reported this
month in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Studying smell, he said,
may help scientists figure out when schizophrenia begins - most
researchers think it starts in the womb - and follow its progression.

While a good sense of smell isn't as important to humans as it is to
animals, it makes a big difference in how food tastes, Cowart said.
And, being able to smell something like natural gas - or,
specifically, the scent added to it, because natural gas is odorless -
can be a lifesaver.

"For human beings, it's to a large extent a quality-of-life issue,"
Cowart said. "I think humans sometimes don't appreciate how much they
use their sense of smell."
Joel M. Eichen - 24 Dec 2004 14:00 GMT
I got the answer already. Too much mercury in the air in the dental
office clogs up people's nostrils. Jan told me that.

Joel

>Posted on Fri, Dec. 24, 2004
>
[quoted text clipped - 100 lines]
>Cowart said. "I think humans sometimes don't appreciate how much they
>use their sense of smell."
Vaughn - 24 Dec 2004 17:06 GMT
> Doty developed a 40-item, multiple-choice scratch-and-sniff test that
> New York researchers used in the study. Their goal was to see whether
> a shorter exam could just as effectively weed out people likely to
> develop more serious memory problems.

    I want to order some of those tests so I can practice!

Vaughn
Joel M. Eichen - 24 Dec 2004 17:13 GMT
>> Doty developed a 40-item, multiple-choice scratch-and-sniff test that
>> New York researchers used in the study. Their goal was to see whether
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Vaughn

I will send you the link, but right now I forgot where I left it
......

Joel
Jan - 24 Dec 2004 22:13 GMT
>Subject: Re: Alzheimers
>From: "Vaughn" vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.fake.net
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Vaughn

I have heard there are tests that can be done.

Since both my parents had/has the disease, I asked my doctor. She says there
are no tests.

IMO, these kind of studies are called *practicing*.

Jan
Robert  Morien - 24 Dec 2004 23:38 GMT
This cross-post brought to you courtesy of Joel M. Eichen
<joeleichen@yahoo.com>. Thank him personally and frequently

> Posted on Fri, Dec. 24, 2004
>  
[quoted text clipped - 103 lines]
> Cowart said. "I think humans sometimes don't appreciate how much they
> use their sense of smell."
Ilena Rose - 25 Dec 2004 00:41 GMT
good one Joelly ... Shabbot Shalom.

>This cross-post brought to you courtesy of Joel M. Eichen
><joeleichen@yahoo.com>. Thank him personally and frequently
[quoted text clipped - 106 lines]
>> Cowart said. "I think humans sometimes don't appreciate how much they
>> use their sense of smell."
GeoSynch - 25 Dec 2004 02:21 GMT
McLardo is one sick puppy obsessed with hounding people on usenet groups.
The real Robert Morein will be only too happy to expound on this.

GeoSynch

> good one Joelly ... Shabbot Shalom.
>
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
>>> Cowart said. "I think humans sometimes don't appreciate how much they
>>> use their sense of smell."
Robert Morein - 25 Dec 2004 02:52 GMT
The offensive posts are forgeries.
If anyone would like to talk about the motivations of the forger, he is
welcome to call me at (215) 646-4894.

Bob Morein

> McLardo is one sick puppy obsessed with hounding people on usenet groups.
> The real Robert Morein will be only too happy to expound on this.
[quoted text clipped - 110 lines]
> >>> Cowart said. "I think humans sometimes don't appreciate how much they
> >>> use their sense of smell."
Joel M. Eichen - 25 Dec 2004 12:45 GMT
>The offensive posts are forgeries.
>If anyone would like to talk about the motivations of the forger, he is
>welcome to call me at (215) 646-4894.

THANKS.

Joel

>Bob Morein
>
[quoted text clipped - 115 lines]
>> >>> Cowart said. "I think humans sometimes don't appreciate how much they
>> >>> use their sense of smell."
Joel M. Eichen - 25 Dec 2004 22:12 GMT
yet succulent source of protein.

2 human baby rib racks
3 cups barbecue sauce or honey glaze (see index)
Salt
black pepper
white pepper
paprika

Remove the silverskin by loosening from the edges,
  then stripping off.
Season generously, rubbing the mixture into the baby?s flesh.
Place 1 quart water in a baking pan, the meat on a wire rack.
Bake uncovered in 250? oven for 1? hours.
When browned, remove and glaze,
  return to oven and bake 20 minutes more to form a glaze.
Cut ribs into individual pieces and serve with extra sauce.

Fresh Sausage

If it becomes necessary to hide the fact that you are eating
human babies, this is the perfect solution.
But if you are still paranoid, you can substitute pork butt.

5 lb. lean chuck roast
3 lb. prime baby butt
2 tablespoons each:
  salt
  black, white and cayenne peppers
  celery salt
  garlic powder
  parsley flakes
  brown sugar
1 teaspoon sage
2 onions
6 cloves garlic
bunch green onions, chopped

Cut the children?s butts and the beef roast into pieces
  that will fit in the grinder.
Run the meat through using a 3/16 grinding plate.
Add garlic, onions and seasoning then mix well.
Add just enough water for a smooth consistency, then mix again.
Form the s
Joel M. Eichen - 25 Dec 2004 12:42 GMT
>good one Joelly ... Shabbot Shalom.

You are welcome!

This reminds me when Time or Business Wekk send me six copies by
mistake. Am I happy? Sure. My neighbors or the people at work are
happy too.

Joel

>>This cross-post brought to you courtesy of Joel M. Eichen
>><joeleichen@yahoo.com>. Thank him personally and frequently
[quoted text clipped - 106 lines]
>>> Cowart said. "I think humans sometimes don't appreciate how much they
>>> use their sense of smell."
Joel M. Eichen - 25 Dec 2004 12:40 GMT
Valuable information. Thanks for the report!

Joel

>This cross-post brought to you courtesy of Joel M. Eichen
><joeleichen@yahoo.com>. Thank him personally and frequently
[quoted text clipped - 106 lines]
>> Cowart said. "I think humans sometimes don't appreciate how much they
>> use their sense of smell."
Auntie Em - 26 Dec 2004 11:52 GMT
I cannot believe that they could use something as subjective as
"smell" to conduct an empirical study on anything.

This has to be bogus.  Besides, there are a zillion reason why you
cannot smell something.  I for one have almost no sense of smell after
having a rather bad sinus infection in the 1990s.

Em
-----
When in trouble or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout.
Rod Speed - 26 Dec 2004 17:48 GMT
> I cannot believe that they could use something as subjective
> as "smell" to conduct an empirical study on anything.

More fool you.

> This has to be bogus.

Nope, and easy to check that it isnt.

> Besides, there are a zillion reason why you cannot smell
> something. I for one have almost no sense of smell after
> having a rather bad sinus infection in the 1990s.

Separate issue entirely to not being able to smell
SOME things but being able to smell others fine.
Peter Bowditch - 26 Dec 2004 23:38 GMT
>I cannot believe that they could use something as subjective as
>"smell" to conduct an empirical study on anything.
>
>This has to be bogus.  Besides, there are a zillion reason why you
>cannot smell something.  I for one have almost no sense of smell after
>having a rather bad sinus infection in the 1990s.

When I was studying perception we had a guest lecturer who told us
about his latest research. He was very proud that his paper had been
accepted for publication in a prestigious journal and couldn't wait to
tell us all about his amazing discovery.

He had shown that the sense of smell diminishes with age, and that
older people could not smell as well as young people could. The
experiment had been to expose people of various ages to the smell of
broccoli and ask them to identify it. Older people wee much less able
to identify the smell, so he claimed that this showed that they could
not smell as well.

Any questions? I was the first, and I said something like: "My
grandfather owned fruit and vegetable shops, my uncle ran a wholesale
vegetable distribution business in the largest farm produce market in
Australia, my parents ran fruit and vegetable shops and for the first
four years of my life I lived over one of the shops. I never saw
broccoli until I was about 15 years old. Is it possible that the older
folk couldn't identify broccoli not because they couldn't smell it but
because it was a smell that they had not experienced when young and
therefore simply could not recognise"?

He had never thought of this possibility!

The result was amazing. He actually crumbled in front of the class. It
looked like his face was going to fall off. All he could think of was
the letters to the editor in the following issue of the journal which
was about to publish his work.

Signature

Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud
    http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Rod Speed - 27 Dec 2004 00:16 GMT
>>I cannot believe that they could use something as subjective as
>>"smell" to conduct an empirical study on anything.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> because it was a smell that they had not experienced when young and
> therefore simply could not recognise"?

Fraid not, it was more common when they were kids than with you.

> He had never thought of this possibility!

But the reviewers would have if it really was a prestige journal.

Thats why papers are peer reviewed.

> The result was amazing. He actually crumbled in front of the
> class. It looked like his face was going to fall off. All he could
> think of was the letters to the editor in the following issue of
> the journal which was about to publish his work.

He may not think on his feet that well. Not that uncommon.
Robert  Morien - 27 Dec 2004 00:57 GMT
> > The result was amazing. He actually crumbled in front of the
> > class. It looked like his face was going to fall off. All he could
> > think of was the letters to the editor in the following issue of
> > the journal which was about to publish his work.
>
> He may not think on his feet that well. Not that uncommon.

.. -... .--. / / .- / -... / ..-. .-. / ..-. .-. .- --. -. / -.-. -. .
-. / --- -. ...- -.- -... / --.. .... ...- --. -... / ... . .-. -.. ....
.-. .- --. .-. --.. .-. .- --. .-. / --..-- / / / .. -... .--. / /
Peter Bowditch - 27 Dec 2004 01:04 GMT
>>>I cannot believe that they could use something as subjective as
>>>"smell" to conduct an empirical study on anything.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
>Fraid not, it was more common when they were kids than with you.

Not in Australia.

>> He had never thought of this possibility!
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>He may not think on his feet that well. Not that uncommon.

Signature

Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud
    http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Rod Speed - 27 Dec 2004 01:10 GMT
>> Peter Bowditch <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote

>>>>I cannot believe that they could use something as subjective as
>>>>"smell" to conduct an empirical study on anything.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>>
>>Fraid not, it was more common when they were kids than with you.

> Not in Australia.

Wrong.

And the 'when young' is irrelevant anyway, all they need is have
been exposed to it as adults to be able to recognise it when older.

Even if you hadnt been exposed to dog sh.t when young,
you'd still be able to recognise it when older as long as
you had been exposed to it at some time.

>>> He had never thought of this possibility!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>
>>He may not think on his feet that well. Not that uncommon.
Robert  Morien - 27 Dec 2004 03:08 GMT
> Even if you hadnt been exposed to dog sh.t when young,
> you'd still be able to recognise it when older as long as
> you had been exposed to it at some time.

.--. / .-. ..-. --. / .--. -... . . .-. .--. --. / -...- / / / -.-. .-.
. ..-. -... .- .- .-. / .- / -. / -.-- / .-. .- .- .... ...- / ...- --.-
.-. .- --. ...- ... ...- .-. . / .. -... --. . .-. / -... --.- .-. ....
.
Mark Thorson - 27 Dec 2004 00:25 GMT
> I never saw broccoli until I was about 15 years old.
> Is it possible that the older folk couldn't identify broccoli
> not because they couldn't smell it but because it was
> a smell that they had not experienced when young and
> therefore simply could not recognise"?

I have a book called ADVANCES IN NEW CROPS
(Timber Press, 1990), which says broccoli wasn't grown
commercially in the U.S. until 1947.  Weird, huh?
Apparently, broccoli is a relatively recent introduction
to the diet of Americans and Australians.

Note that this correlates well with the appearance of
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity!  Therefore broccoli
MUST cause Multiple Chemical Sensitivity!  :-)
Rod Speed - 27 Dec 2004 00:41 GMT
>> I never saw broccoli until I was about 15 years old.
>> Is it possible that the older folk couldn't identify broccoli
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Apparently, broccoli is a relatively recent introduction
> to the diet of Americans and Australians.

Nope. And plenty would have grown their own before that anyway.

And that doesnt apply to the list used as a test for Altzhiemers anyway.

> Note that this correlates well with the appearance of
> Multiple Chemical Sensitivity!  Therefore broccoli
> MUST cause Multiple Chemical Sensitivity!  :-)

Careful you dont go blind now.
David Wright - 29 Dec 2004 05:04 GMT
>> I never saw broccoli until I was about 15 years old.
>> Is it possible that the older folk couldn't identify broccoli
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>Multiple Chemical Sensitivity!  Therefore broccoli
>MUST cause Multiple Chemical Sensitivity!  :-)

No wonder I didn't like to eat it in my youth.

From Wikipedia:

Broccoli was naturalized by the D'Arrigo brothers, Stephano and
Andrea, immigrants from Messina, Italy, whose company made some
tentative plantings in San Jose, California in 1922, and shipped a few
crates to Boston, where there was a thriving Italian immigrant culture
in the North End, ready for a familiar green. The broccoli business
boomed, with the d'Arrigo's brand name 'Andy Boy' named after
Stephano's two-year-old son, Andrew, and backed with advertisements on
the radio. So broccoli arrived in the U.S. in the 1920s as a 'new
vegetable.

Apparently, it's been around for a while, but I've also seen claims
that it was produced by the same Broccoli family that gave us the
James Bond movies.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
      "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
          were standing on my shoulders."  (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.