[HN Gopher] Lithium compound can reverse Alzheimer's in mice: study
___________________________________________________________________
Lithium compound can reverse Alzheimer's in mice: study
Author : highfrequency
Score : 126 points
Date : 2025-08-07 14:56 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hms.harvard.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (hms.harvard.edu)
| MaxPock wrote:
| Things I love to read.
|
| I went to visit my aunt one day, and my favourite uncle couldn't
| recognize me. It made me think that Alzheimer's is probably the
| worst thing that could happen to a person. I mean, what's worse
| than not being able to recognize those closest to you? You work a
| lifetime, and then you go out in such an undignified manner.
|
| I pray for a cure in my lifetime.
| outworlder wrote:
| It's worse. Not recognizing people close to you is really hard
| on everyone else(including people taking care of you), but
| since you don't remember, it's not as bad for you.
|
| You won't even remember whether or not you had lunch. I met a
| grandma that was distraught that nobody was feeding her and she
| was hungry. Except she had had lunch already but couldn't
| remember. You forget where you live so if you get out of the
| house you can't get back. And many have 'sundowning', they get
| scared if they are outside and the night falls. It's not just
| the forgetting either, you start losing fundamental functions
| and eventually die. Not to mention the aggression and mood
| swings, which are aggravated if you try to point out that they
| are forgetting things.
|
| It's a terrible disease. You cease to be you.
| groos wrote:
| What most people don't realize is that Alzheimer's - and its
| friend FTD - are terminal diseases with life expectancy just
| as bad as many cancers. Hardly anyone makes it to 5 years
| after diagnosis. The bodily degeneration that eventually
| results in the patient being utterly unable to function is
| heartbreaking. Forgetting things is a relatively minor
| symptom. It's also terrible on the family members of the
| patient whose mental health also suffers along the way.
| cubefox wrote:
| > It made me think that Alzheimer's is probably the worst thing
| that could happen to a person.
|
| Alzheimer's is slowly destroying the person, but this might in
| some cases be not as bad as diseases which leave the person in
| place but make them suffer intensely, e.g. from pain or
| depression. Though it's hard to compare.
| a5c11 wrote:
| I'll take pain over slowly reversing to fetal brain
| development. My grandma had it, and it was freaking sad to
| watch her lose all body functions. I've already made a
| decision that when I spot first symptoms, and there won't be
| a cure, I'll finish all my earthly stuff, and will buy some
| good morphine.
| switchbak wrote:
| > It made me think that Alzheimer's is probably the worst thing
| that could happen to a person
|
| I've had relatives die of Alzheimer's, and others die from
| other causes. Let me assure you that there are worse fates than
| the one you describe.
| prmph wrote:
| worse than familial insomnia?
| chevalier_1222 wrote:
| guess I'll add phone batteries to my diet
| modeless wrote:
| Lithium orotate is available over the counter. People could try
| it today.
|
| > Since lithium has not yet been shown to be safe or effective in
| protecting against neurodegeneration in humans, Yankner
| emphasizes that people should not take lithium compounds on their
| own
|
| I reject this kind of blind safetyism. A cursory search suggests
| that lithium orotate has been used for decades, and the article
| suggests that "profound effects" were seen at an "exquisitely low
| dose" which should be safe. They're going to need a much better
| explanation of why people shouldn't try it.
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| People use it in much smaller dosages then it's usually
| prescribed to apparently beneficial effect.
|
| I believe its also in the water supply in certain places, so if
| it works for dementia there are natural experiments already
| running on this.
|
| https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/low-dose-lithium-a-new...
| cypherpunks01 wrote:
| Yes, it's already thought that there's an association between
| naturally occurring lithium in drinking water and decreased
| suicide rates:
|
| https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-
| journal-...
|
| I would think naturally occurring lithium in some people's
| water would give pretty good control conditions to do a wide
| study of this effect on Alzheimers as well?
| Mistletoe wrote:
| This is fascinating, thank you.
| valianteffort wrote:
| The addition of flouride to tap water supply likely affects
| brain development. Let's not go adding lithium too.
|
| These things are simple enough to advise the populace to
| use on their own. The government should never play nanny,
| ever.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| And crime in general.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7576670/
| twojacobtwo wrote:
| (for others like myself)
|
| _Results_
|
| The literature search identified 415 articles; of these, 15
| ecological studies were included in the synthesis. The
| random-effects meta-analysis showed a consistent protective
| (or inverse) association between lithium
| levels/concentration in publicly available drinking water
| and total (pooled b = -0.27, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.08; P =
| 0.006, I2 = 83.3%), male (pooled b = -0.26, 95% CI -0.56 to
| 0.03; P = 0.08, I2 = 91.9%) and female (pooled b = -0.13,
| 95% CI -0.24 to -0.02; P = 0.03, I2 = 28.5%) suicide
| mortality rates. A similar protective association was
| observed in the six studies included in the narrative
| synthesis, and subgroup meta-analyses based on the
| higher/lower suicide mortality rates and lithium
| levels/concentration.
| cubefox wrote:
| > They're going to need a much better explanation of why people
| shouldn't try it.
|
| Clinical trials need many participants and take a long time,
| and they require a control group which doesn't take lithium
| orotate. Finding these people might be hard if everyone is
| taking it anyway.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| So if after a long time its proven that it does prevent
| Alzheimer's, was the deaths of everyone that would have been
| taking lithium to prevent it due to this anecdotal article
| worth it?
|
| Would you be willing to die of Alzheimer's in order to serve
| as a placebo for the control group? What about your parents?
|
| I don't really understand this mindset.
|
| I already ordered 5mg tablets of lithium orate as soon as I
| read this. I'll just add them to the handfuls of other
| supplements I take each day just in case they may protect
| against common degenerative ailments.
|
| I very much adhere to the better safe than sorry or yolo
| approach to supplementation.
| Angostura wrote:
| > I don't really understand this mindset.
|
| It's called evidence-based medicine and it's useful for
| answering questions such such as 'with taking Lithium
| prevent Alzheimer's by ensuring you die of kidney disease
| first.
|
| Taking a bunch of unnecessary supplements isn't inherently
| "safe".
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Low dose lithium is not going to cause kidney failure. I
| was also responding specifically to OP advocating for
| people to intentionally not to take it so there is a
| ready supply of people to test it on who are not already
| on it for a long period of time (decades). They are
| advocating for self sacrifice.
|
| This by default means there must be a large supply of
| people not on it for a long period of time who will
| suffer and die from Alzheimer's instead of just taking
| the supplement. That was my issue. It seemed to call for
| the self sacrifice of many in order to allow for a long
| term study. But I think you already know that if you read
| my response and just chose to focus on a single sentence.
| cubefox wrote:
| The alternative to a clinical trial would be that there
| continues to be much less certainty whether lithium orotate
| actually works and is safe. Which would result in less or
| more usage than optimal.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I will ask you the same question I asked OP
|
| "Would you be willing to die of Alzheimer's in order to
| serve as a placebo for the control group? What about your
| parents?"
|
| Since that is essentially what you are asking the people
| that would have ordered low dose lithium based on this
| article to do.
| cubefox wrote:
| Well I was the OP. It might be a tragedy of the commons
| situation. For each individual it may be better to ignore
| trials and just self medicate, but on the whole this
| could lead to an overall worse outcome in the long run.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Ha! you were op, my fault :)
|
| Although that means you avoided answering my question
| directly multiple times although I think you strongly
| alluded that the answer would be no in your last
| response.
|
| I look at my life and those of my family as precious and
| more valuable than all other lives (their lives over
| mine). I expect others to operate in a similar manner and
| that is why I am always taken aback at posts that seem to
| advocate for the sacrifice of one's self for the benefit
| of strangers. This is different of course from in the
| moment actions such as running into a burning building to
| save someone or stepping up to protect a woman you have
| never met from an aggressive man.
|
| Your response while vague appears to indicate that you
| would not sacrifice yourself for this experiment either.
| Which is what I would expect from everyone.
|
| I understand your general advocation for the clinical
| study and I agree with the need overall but not at the
| cost of intentionally sacrificing oneself.
|
| So I'll pop a low dose lithium tablet along with a baby
| aspirin each night and hope you do the same. Wishing you
| a long life my friend.
| bawolff wrote:
| > So if after a long time its proven that it does prevent
| Alzheimer's, was the deaths of everyone that would have
| been taking lithium to prevent it due to this anecdotal
| article worth it?
|
| And if it actually makes Alzheimer's worse?
|
| We are talking about a mouse model of a disease that very
| famously doesn't work the same way in mice and humans. The
| most likely scenario is it does nothing. With this level of
| evidence you might as well just eat random garbage off the
| ground in the off chance it helps.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Probably nothing
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31954065/
|
| "Conclusion: Individuals with BD [Bi Polar Disorder] are
| at higher risk of dementia than both the general
| population or those with MDD. Lithium appears to reduce
| the risk of developing dementia in BD."
| jsbisviewtiful wrote:
| > I reject this kind of blind safetyism.
|
| You said you searched to learn more about lithium, but somehow
| missed that it's highly recommended to be administered by
| doctors due to side effects after long term use. Anything that
| damages your kidneys or thyroids can kill you, so calling it
| "blind safetyism" is silly.
| rogerrogerr wrote:
| It's blind safetyism when an article writes "don't do this
| because no one has proven it is safe". Most people will read
| that as "you can probably do this but in the off chance
| something bad happens, I wrote these words so you have a
| harder time suing me".
|
| It would be more useful and effective for the article to say
| "don't do this to yourself because it can damage your guts,
| see these links, there's tradeoffs here"
|
| The former just fades into the modern world's background
| noise of unchecked ass-covering.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| > The former just fades into the modern world's background
| noise of unchecked ass-covering.
|
| The missing piece of this argument is just what the
| probability of different legal risks is here.
|
| Wether or not their ass-covering is reasonable hinges on
| that and on _their_ risk tolerance.
| rogerrogerr wrote:
| Oh, it's rational for them! That's the problem - it's
| always rational to treat anything you write as the
| highest level of liability. No one loses money by adding
| more disclaimers. Observe:
|
| Drinking water is a good idea.
|
| *check with your doctor if you are allergic to water,
| have a history of drowning, or are unable to distinguish
| water from ethanol. Do not consume water while intubated.
| People with rabies may have adverse reactions to water.
| Use caution when drinking water if you cannot swallow or
| are currently vomiting. Water from some sources may be
| contaminated. Salt water may contain jellyfish.
|
| ---
|
| My legal exposure from the initial statement went down
| with every little stupid disclaimer I added there, and
| there's no penalty for each one. But you probably didn't
| even read the full thing. We've created a culture of
| everyone feeling like they need to cover their ass, and
| the real important things get drowned out.
| tgv wrote:
| Especially since mice are not really perfect models for
| humans. For starters: these mice were "12 to 24 months of
| age", whereas your typical Alzheimer patient is well over 30
| times that. The article also links it to amyloid plaques,
| which is a contested hypothesis that may well have held back
| Alzheimer research for decades. To be fair, the article seems
| to look at more mechanisms, but that's well beyond my
| expertise.
| modeless wrote:
| 12 to 24 months is old in mouse years. And the article
| offers a plausible explanation for both why plaques could
| cause the disease and why clearing them alone might not fix
| it without lithium supplementation.
| hollerith wrote:
| The kidney damage, etc, are consequences of the very high
| doses of lithium needed to control bipolar disorder.
|
| Most experts who have been recommending lithium
| supplementation to support general health recommend doses
| about 100 or 300 times lower.
| modeless wrote:
| Exactly. An "exquisitely low dose" should be safe. And
| Alzheimer's also kills you, after making life no longer
| worth living. For people who already have it, I don't see
| any reason why they shouldn't try an appropriate dose.
| tokai wrote:
| >it's highly recommended to be administered by doctors due to
| side effects after long term use
|
| This is at a clinical dose which is somewhat high. It is the
| dosage fund reliable as treatment for bipolar type 1. As long
| as you get your kidney numbers checked twice a year, at that
| dose, its mostly unproblematic as issues show themselves in
| the numbers before major damage.
| QuantumGood wrote:
| When I started giving injections to a family member, I
| learned many things can cause problems that I didn't know
| about, such as that very tiny bits can break loose from the
| bottle top and cause issues. "Blind safetyism" is a point of
| view that can be more popular with certain personality types,
| but I think it's often a good starting point for research.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I ordered 5mg tablets of Lithium Orate 5 minutes after reading
| this article on X. I take EGCG as well due to a similar
| article.
| alphazard wrote:
| The error in "safteyism" isn't that the conventional wisdom
| will incorrectly identify safe things as dangerous. It's that
| risk and reward always exists on a spectrum, and the people
| best incentivized to get that tradeoff right are patients and
| caretakers, not concerned 3rd parties.
|
| The error of the concerned 3rd party is particularly egregious
| with a disease like Alzheimer's, which presents a significant
| risk of ruin in the form of _information death_. It is totally
| rational to use an intervention that will cause you significant
| harm if it preserves your mind another few years.
| lawlessone wrote:
| I've heard of suggestions that it should be added to water(in
| low doses of course) to see it reduces suicide rates.
|
| I like the idea but can only imagine the anti-flouride crowd
| would freak out.
| Aurornis wrote:
| I tried the low-dose lithium orotate supplements and the net
| effect was apathy and reduced motivation. Not everyone
| experiences this but from searching I'm not alone.
|
| Definitely not something to start pouring into the water
| supply.
| ianmcgowan wrote:
| That's exactly what the Lizard overlords are doing! /s -
| wouldn't be surprised there's a few conspiracy theorists
| who believe this...
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Pulling this out of my ass, but lithium is associated with
| weight gain, and has been suggested to be a possible
| causative agent on the obesity epidemic. (Extremely low
| confidence on this one)
| zingababba wrote:
| I've played with it on and off for years from 1mg up to 10mg a
| day. It's a drug I definitely 'feel' when I'm not saturated. I
| initially became interested in it due to this -> "Since vitamin
| B12 and folate also affect mood-associated parameters, the
| stimulation of the transport of these vitamins into brain cells
| by lithium may be cited as yet another mechanism of the anti-
| depressive, mood-elevating and anti-aggressive actions of
| lithium at nutritional dosage levels."
| (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11838882/)
|
| It does reach a point of diminishing returns for me and I
| become too sedated. I now take it irregularly.
| connicpu wrote:
| My spouse was prescribed lithium by doctors and it messed up
| her thyroid, it's not a drug to be taken lightly.
| vczf wrote:
| Sure, but the amount and form of the lithium matters. 5mg of
| lithium orotate (as a supplement) versus 600mg lithium
| carbonate (as a mood stabilizer) will have vastly different
| acute and chronic health effects.
| renecito wrote:
| yup, because this could not be a scam.
|
| You are free to try it, it's over the counter, no one is
| oppressing you here, Darwin is your friend.
| nyeah wrote:
| "They" are just some people who did an experiment on mice. They
| _don 't know_ the effects on humans. It sounds like you think
| you know more than they do. Ok.
|
| A paper is not like a religious commandment or something. It's,
| best case, some mortals honestly trying to learn something.
| Scolding them for admitting the limits of their knowledge is
| not reasonable.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| The comment I see right above yours says "there is no reliable
| Mouse Model for Alzheimer's." So it's certainly not a slam dunk
| that taking OTC lithium orotate is going to prevent
| Alzheimer's. Maybe it'll work? (but you won't know for decades)
| And maybe it's safe as long as you don't exceed the recommended
| dose, but there can be interactions with other meds you might
| be taking (some diuretics will cause you to concentrate
| lithium, for example).
| Aurornis wrote:
| I tried Lithium Orotate at the typical supplement dose. After
| the first week it left me feeling rather blah. Discontinuing it
| reversed the feeling after a few days.
|
| I repeated this a couple more times with a repeatable outcome.
|
| It's very hyped in supplement communities with claims that it's
| perfectly safe and side effect free. I didn't get any kidney
| damage or anything, but I also didn't get a positive benefit
| from it. Only subtle negatives that built up over a week.
| leoh wrote:
| Not for you, then, right? Pretty normal for many medicines,
| supplements, etc. I think it's cool we can try things (even
| if they don't always work).
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| Indeed!
|
| Sure, maybe lithium orotate can be bad in high doses.
|
| You know what's super-bad for sure? Alzheimer's!
|
| If I have Alzheimer's, please let me try whatever long-shot you
| have. I'll be your gunnie pig.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Completely agree. The other thing that was very encouraging
| about the study is that it actually _reversed_ memory decline -
| it 's not like you needed to take it for years/decades in
| advance to prevent that decline in the first place, so you can
| make the choice when the risk/reward tradeoff is much clearer.
|
| Having seen a few family members succumb to dementia, it's not
| a path I want to take. Fuck up my kidneys and give me an early
| death, fine, but if I start showing the signs of that type of
| mental decline, I'm taking the lithium orotate.
|
| My related biggest concern about this is that since it's a
| cheap supplement that can't be patented, it won't be a priority
| for the drug industry to study. Another reason to not
| necessarily trust the "Just slowly die by Alzheimers until we
| find the perfectly safe (patentable) antidote" crowd.
| phkahler wrote:
| Lithium-6 if I recall correctly was the preferred isotope (for
| the brain, not this study). I don't recall why.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| Lithium is a strange drug. It also cures bipolar disorder and
| nobody knows why. It also fucks up the liver over time and
| basically people on lithium eventually have to make a choice
| between dying or being insane.
| bink wrote:
| Surely the minimal dosage they're studying here won't have such
| dramatic impacts on the liver? It's basically what's available
| in some water sources. It's also available in food sources like
| leafy greens, nuts, and legumes.
| exmadscientist wrote:
| It's mostly the kidneys that get damaged, not so much the
| liver. It also has a _massive_ amount of benign or merely
| annoying side effects. Lithium might even be the drug with the
| largest overall amount of side effects. It 's certainly a weird
| one.
|
| High-dose lithium is extremely hard on your kidneys and may
| well lead to kidney failure in a decade or so. Medium-dose
| lithium is a lot more gentle but still requires monitoring.
| Many people can go down in dose after initial treatment, and
| good psych prescribers will attempt to do this after a while.
| (Or patients will request it, after the other side effects of
| lithium become noticable after the bipolar has settled down.)
| Low-dose lithium is much harder to study and may well be pretty
| safe. May.
|
| It is not quite true that people have no idea how it cures
| bipolar disorder. It's definitely affecting the ion channels
| (sodium, potassium, etc), just like many other anticonvulsant
| drugs also used for treating bipolar. So the mechanism for
| action is not totally insane and unique. Now, why the ion
| channels are the place to go for certain people, that's an open
| question....
| dboreham wrote:
| > Now, why the ion channels are the place to go
|
| Personal theory: these things are like "global constants" for
| the brain's GPU. Somewhat similar to the temperature constant
| in an LLM. There is no real "explanation" for why they work,
| they just have an effect. Various chemicals have various
| effects, often depending on the patient (because other
| constants vary, training data varies...) and we pick the
| chemical we like the effect of most.
| owenversteeg wrote:
| I have to say that I think the current popular idea of "we
| know how X drug works in the body because it does Y to Z" is
| patently insane. It may be useful information, sure, but it's
| not really _why_ it works, because we don't understand how
| the body works. It would be like Toyota saying: "the Corolla
| works on gasoline because it burns inside the engine, but we
| have no idea why the engine breaks when you put acetone in
| it." It would be obvious that Toyota had no goddamn clue what
| was going on in the engine! And yet, that's exactly where we
| are with most drugs including lithium; most of these so-
| called mechanisms would work on rubidium, so why does
| rubidium have different effects? Who knows!
|
| If you read a literature review for lithium's mechanism of
| action, it's a wild ride [0] that clearly demonstrates
| exactly how little we know. More importantly, though, is that
| all of this is made up ex post facto. Nobody can take a _new_
| drug and tell you anything concrete about what it will do or
| how it will work: instead, we look at what happens and _then_
| we make crude guesses. It is essentially modern miasma
| theory. For those who have forgotten, the application of
| miasma theory built our first sanitation systems, which
| eliminated more deaths from disease than the entirety of
| vaccines. That is to say: just because we are groping in the
| dark does not make the work useless, and indeed, our first
| vaccines were also constructed with very primitive methods.
|
| I think that a more concrete understanding of the human body
| can only come when we start to understand all the many
| pathways of life in/on/around the body. Right now, our
| technology constrains us to investigate only individual
| points in mostly static ways. Give it a few decades of
| advancement and I bet we'll have some fascinating insights. I
| would also bet that, as with any complex system, there will
| be no simple answers to how things work.
|
| -----------
|
| For what it's worth, in the specific case of lithium, the
| American Society of Health-System Pharmacists would agree
| with me that the mechanism of action is unknown:
| https://www.drugs.com/monograph/lithium.html
|
| [0]
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40263-013-0039-0
| exmadscientist wrote:
| That monograph is not appropriate to this discussion
| because it is written for practitioners, not researchers.
| There is plenty of information on _some_ of the things
| lithium is doing. My point was not "we have a complete
| understanding", but "we have some idea what is going on
| here, but there is still a lot we don't know".
|
| Lithium is one of a large class of drugs that modulate the
| chemical potentials of the body's voltage-gated ion
| channels. There are a lot of drugs in this class, and most
| have been used with at least some degree of success to
| treat bipolar disorder. This class is also first-line
| treatment for many forms of epilepsy. The GABA system is
| directly tied in here too, and GABAergic agents are
| generally considered part of this class... and, guess what,
| they often help in bipolar as well. Lithium is a unique
| member of this class, and it is completely obvious (to a
| biochemist) that adding another species of alkali metal in
| sufficient concentration will disrupt the chemical
| potentials of sodium and potassium ion transport in the ion
| channels.
|
| My point is: the first-level effect of lithium is well
| understood, and it affects an area that is well known to be
| affected by other drugs that have similar effects. So it is
| not total voodoo. However, you are also very correct that
| our understanding starts to break down after this. We can
| come up with new ion channel modulating drugs, and can
| reasonably expect them to be effective candidates for
| helping bipolar patients. What we cannot do is predict
| other targets or classes of drugs that might be
| interesting. That is where our understanding breaks down.
| owenversteeg wrote:
| I'm not sure why the relevant portion of the monograph
| isn't appropriate simply because of the target audience.
| "Alters sodium transport in nerve and muscle cells and
| effects a shift toward intraneuronal metabolism of
| catecholamines, but the specific biochemical mechanism of
| lithium action in mania is unknown" is the general
| consensus on lithium whether you're reading it as you,
| me, or Donald Duck.
|
| Here is where we can both agree: we know a few things
| about the mechanism, which allow us to make some useful
| judgments in a few limited cases. We can also both agree
| that we know so little that, if a new, similar drug were
| proposed, with only a small change to its chemical
| structure, neither of us would dare make any confident
| statements about its action. We also cannot accurately
| predict what would happen if given to a patient with a
| well-studied but different disorder. In other words: most
| of the useful judgments about lithium - those that would
| be economically or socially interesting, for example -
| cannot be made from the model, because our understanding
| of the mechanism of action is too crude.
|
| All of that is also, however, true about my hypothetical
| Corolla from my first example: we can say a few things,
| but most of the useful judgments that could be made from
| a full understanding cannot be made. It would be obvious
| to anyone that we do not understand the Corolla. So why,
| then, would we claim to understand lithium?
| funnym0nk3y wrote:
| Lithium is far from the drug with the highest amount of side
| effects among psych meds. Take the first generation
| antipsychotics for example. They are nasty.
|
| As a matter of fact, lithium patients aren't much worse off
| when it comes to kidney function. Especially with modern
| levels of around 0.6 to 0.8 mmols.
|
| Lithium has many modes of action, ion channels like you said,
| but also GSK3 function, BDNF changes and many more. It even
| changes the DNA methylation.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| That's quite a stretch. Lithium does not cure bipolar disorder
| nor is it effective in many afflicted. Also, Lithium is not the
| only medication for Bipolar Disorder, there are a double-digit
| number of alternative options.
|
| Also, to my knowledge, we are not entirely sure why most, if
| not all, of the psychiatric drugs work. Plenty of hypotheses
| though.
| funnym0nk3y wrote:
| Lithium cures Bipolar the same way all the other psych meds
| do. They don't. They just manage symptoms. Like insulin does,
| or antihistamines, etc. A propper cure is rare in medicine.
| nartho wrote:
| I have (had?) a chronic skin condition called seborrheic
| dermatitis. It manifested as dry cracks over my lips and
| cheekbones exuding an orange/yellow liquid. It was itchy and
| looked absolutely disgusting. It would stay there for a few
| weeks and then come back in a few months. Treatment was
| cortisone which reduced the time it would but it would always
| reappear a couple of months later, it'd also lose
| effectiveness. Then my dermatologist prescribed a new lithium
| based treatment (Lithioderm) and after a first treatment, I got
| a couple of progressively smaller outbreaks, and it's never
| reappeared since then, it's been 20 years. I don't think we
| know how or why it works but I'm glad it did.
| stivatron wrote:
| Watch out, there's no reliable Alzheimer's mouse model.
| stivatron wrote:
| Watch out, there is no reliable Mouse Model for Alzheimer's. I
| was deeply involved with mouse models at some point before
| quitting my phd in neuroscience and I quite remember that.
| kovek wrote:
| Could you share some sources that show this to be true?
| j_bum wrote:
| Not a source, but the fact that we can treat AD in mice but
| not humans should demonstrate OPs point sufficiently.
| themafia wrote:
| Wild mice do not get AD. Even if you let them achieve old age
| they do not develop the same brain plaques or tangles that
| are linked to Alzheimers.
|
| Even if they did you'd have to run huge samples then do post
| testing necropsies to see which mice had AD which which
| didn't, then filter your data, then try to find results in
| what remains.
|
| Otherwise you can inject the mice with a chemical known to
| cause AD, which is not reliable on it's own, so you can get
| genetically modified mice which express _some_ of the known
| plaques and misfolds that are associated with human AD.
|
| Animal testing is still, largely, a very unethical and cruel
| affair. AD testing in mice is especially fraught with hazard.
| xkcd-sucks wrote:
| It's like kind of challenging to prove this kind of negative,
| and the supposed proof here comprises no more than pedigreed
| words on a page, but here consider the section "What
| constitutes a good model for AD?": https://sci-
| hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-01...
| csaid81 wrote:
| Yes, but not only did they improve the memory of mouse models
| of Alzheimer's, they also improved the memory of older wild-
| type mice, which seems impressive to me.
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09335-x/figures/1...
| leoh wrote:
| > Lithium was the only metal that differed significantly
| between people with and without mild cognitive impairment,
| often a precursor to Alzheimer's disease.
|
| Not a causative finding in humans but darn interesting
| WillAdams wrote:
| A spring near where I grew up used to be considered a notable
| watersource, and was actively bottled and sold, with the
| marketing proclaiming the benefits of "Lithia Water" --- always
| wondered how trace minerals from wells and springs affects
| health, and how consistent the elemental content is from year-to-
| year.
| nahikoa wrote:
| Given that tens of millions people have been treated for bipolar
| disorder with Lithium Carbonate, shouldn't researchers have
| already seen a correlation with Alzheimer's in patients?
| vczf wrote:
| From the abstract of the paper: > Replacement
| therapy with lithium orotate, which is a Li salt with reduced
| amyloid binding, prevents pathological changes and memory loss
| in AD mouse models and ageing wild-type mice.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09335-x
|
| Another source on lithium orotate: > LiOr is
| proposed to cross the blood-brain barrier and enter cells more
| readily than Li2CO3, which will theoretically allow for reduced
| dosage requirements and ameliorated toxicity concerns.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8413749/
| leoh wrote:
| Definitely, good point
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I was curious if there was any correlation, inverse or other
| between people with Bi-polar disease treated with lithium and
| dementia.
|
| Seems like a good real world example that should prove out if
| lithium works as we know people with BD take it.
|
| Turns out there is a study that says there is.
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31954065/
|
| "Conclusion: Individuals with BD are at higher risk of dementia
| than both the general population or those with MDD. Lithium
| appears to reduce the risk of developing dementia in BD."
|
| Overall people with Bi-Polar have a much higher rate of dementia
| but lithium treatment appears to reduce that.
|
| People treated with valproate instead (a mood stabilizer) do not
| enjoy the same benefit.
|
| So I'll commit to adding low dose lithium to my daily supplements
| amluto wrote:
| Interestingly, the proposed mechanism seems consistent with the
| apparent small benefit of anti-amyloid antibody therapy: if
| amyloid deposits interfere with lithium uptake, then removing
| them could restore some lithium availability without doing
| anything about the underlying initial cause of insufficient
| lithium.
| funnym0nk3y wrote:
| There are so many misconceptions about lithium wrt to the human
| body.
|
| I don't know why so many people differentiate between lithium
| orotate and the lithium carbonate in psychiatry. Although they
| differ in absorption the active component is the lithium ion in
| both cases. Dosage is done according to lithium content, there
| are tables for converting from orotate to carbonate and back.
|
| Then the effects of lithium orotate and carbonate can't be that
| different. And thus, above a particular dose blood monitoring is
| mandatory.
|
| There are benefits of low dose lithium for sure. And the dosages
| in psychiatry have been on a steady decline. With lower doses
| come less side effects. It is definitly not the hammer of
| psychiatry that turns people into zombies or messes. It feels
| quite natural.
|
| In addition the reduction of Alzheimers cases is not unique to
| lithium. Many meds cause Alzheimers rates in mentally ill people
| to decline to general population levels.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| The headline in the article from Harvard says "Could Lithium
| Explain -- and Treat -- Alzheimer's Disease?"
|
| The headline right now "Lithium Reverses Alzheimer's in Mice"
|
| Those are two quite different statements. Someone should fix
| that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-07 23:01 UTC)