Three comments:

- You can actually buy the drug here: https://focusbiomolecules.com/p7c3-a20-nampt-activator-prone... It's a simple small molecule. If this stuff works, expect it to be everywhere within just a couple of years.

- There's room for skepticism. As Derek Lowe once wrote: "Alzheimer's therapies have, for the most part, been a cliff over which people push bales of money. There are plenty of good reasons for this: we don't really know what the cause of Alzheimer's is, when you get down to it, and we're the only animal that we know of that gets it. Mouse models of the disease would be extremely useful – you wouldn't even have to know what the problem was to do some sort of phenotypic screen – but the transgenic mice used for these experiments clearly don't recapitulate the human disease. The hope for the last 25 years or so has been that they'd be close enough to get somewhere, but look where we are."

> https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/just-how-worthless...

- If the drug's mechanism of action has been correctly assigned, it's very plausible that simply supplementing with NMN, NR, or NADH would work equally well. The authors caution against this on, IMO, extremely shaky and unjustified grounds. "Pieper emphasized that current over-the-counter NAD+-precursors have been shown in animal models to raise cellular NAD+ to dangerously high levels that promote cancer."

When enough words, framing, and unstated important premises are omitted, it crosses over from the realm of incomplete or misleading into plain outright lying in my worldview.

They claim "Reverses advanced AD in mice." What they did is reverse symptoms in genetic models.

They claim to "Restore NAD+ homeostasis," ignoring that NAD might not even be causally related to Alzheimer’s, just a side effect. It’s like saying we cured a house fire because we efficiently removed the ashes after the fire. It’s the Tau thing all over again.

The claim: "Conservative molecular signatures" when in reality, 5xFAD mice are poor predictors of human clinical success to such a degree that it’s statistically more common for mice studies to NOT transfer to human biology than to do so.

They also make unsupported claims like "Safer than NAD+ precursors (supplements)," when this is a pre-clinical assumption. No human toxicity trials are mentioned in this context, and there are always MASSIVE differences when switching to real human studies. It might be correct, but there’s no basis to say that based on this study.

Also, the senior author owns the company. The paper has the hallmarks of a "pitch deck" for the drug.

In short, it seems to me that the claim of "Full Neurological Recovery" is misleading to patients. It fails to prove that fixing NAD+ in humans will stop the disease, only that it works in mice engineered to have the disease, and only by assuming that their specific measure is a 1-to-1 with the clinical presentation of the disease. The results are likely the "best case scenario" presented to support the commercialization of P7C3-A20.

Here is the COMMON SENSE question peer-reviews should have asked. Is low NAD+ the fire, or just the ashes?

Why should we believe this works in humans when the last 500 'cures' in 5xFAD mice failed?

Are you regrowing a brain, or just cleaning up a dirty one?

How does one molecule fix five unconnected problems simultaneously? The Context: The drug fixed inflammation, blood-brain barrier, amyloid/tau (protein folding), and memory (neuronal signaling). Drugs rarely hit four distinct biological systems with 100% success....

Where is the toxicology report that proves 'safer than supplements'?