Scientists Reverse Advanced Alzheimer’s in Mice: Why We Must Never Give Up on Patients

This article was originally published at LifeNews.com.

A recent study published in Cell Reports Medicine demonstrated that, under the right conditions, the brain can repair itself using a compound that restores NAD+ levels.

Although conducted in animal models, this research offers a ray of hope for someday treating Alzheimer’s disease (AD). It serves as a vital reminder that we must never abandon hope or withhold care from anyone, no matter how fragile their medical condition or health.

For decades, AD has long been thought to be permanent and irreversible. Yet, researchers from Case Western Reserve University, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, and the Louis Stokes VA Medical Center in Cleveland found that restoring proper levels of the critical cellular energy molecule NAD+ not only prevented AD-like pathology in mice but also reversed advanced cognitive decline and brain injury.

The number of people with AD is growing rapidly. In the United States, more than 7 million Americans age 65 and older are living with AD, and that number is projected to nearly double by 2050. Worldwide, an estimated 55 million people live with some form of dementia, most commonly AD, and that population could balloon to 139 million by 2050.

Those who need care aren’t just statistics; they are people, deserving of protection, compassion, and life-affirming care. Our responsibility is to support and cherish them, not cut their lives short while falsely calling it mercy. Millions of families and caregivers practice sacrificial love every day, tending to those who can no longer care for themselves.

Indeed, for patients with advanced AD who struggle with swallowing and require feeding tubes, the NAD+ research underscores the critical importance of providing life-sustaining nutrition and hydration. Proper feeding provides basic nutrients for maintaining brain and body function, helping to prevent additional medical complications and preserving strength and comfort.

Most importantly, continued care affirms the inherent dignity and value of the person, extending meaningful interaction, compassionate care, and the possibility of benefiting from future therapies.

In contrast, practices such as voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED) directly undermine a person’s dignity, particularly for those facing AD. Intentionally depriving oneself of basic nourishment leads to death through starvation and dehydration, denying people comfort and any chance of recovery. With scientists and doctors making meaningful progress toward treating AD, abandoning those affected is especially troubling.

This marks a profound ethical shift in our approach to end-of-life care, one that did not occur organically. It began in the 1980s, when bioethicist Daniel Callahan intentionally sought to redefine providing food and water via feeding tubes as medical treatment rather than basic care, a change with immense ethical, legal, and medical consequences.

Callahan’s revision has had profound implications, especially for patients with brain injuries, severe disabilities, or AD that renders them unable to speak. It effectively legitimized deliberately ending the lives of patients he described as “biologically tenacious,” those who survive despite serious medical issues, by withholding life-sustaining nutrition and hydration.

Recategorizing feeding tubes as medical treatment reduced the legal hurdles to withdrawing or refusing them. In fact, removing or denying feeding tubes is legal in all 50 U.S. states, even in cases when there is an expressed wish to have one.

Treatment decisions are no longer grounded in the recognition of the inherent dignity of every human life, regardless of condition or prognosis. Clinicians and family members can now choose to withhold nutrition based on their subjective judgments about a patient’s “quality of life.”

Unsurprisingly, the reclassification effort has extended to other forms of basic care. In Canada, the 2014 Bentley v. Maplewood Seniors Care Society case directly tested whether food offered on a spoon or tray to a person with advanced AD could be considered medical treatment rather than ordinary care.

The patient’s family argued that assisted feeding constituted health care that could be refused under consent laws. Fortunately, British Columbia’s Supreme Court rejected this claim, ruling that spoon-feeding is personal care, not medical treatment.

Similar arguments have surfaced in the United States. In some cases, courts have framed assisted or tube feeding as a medical intervention subject to withdrawal. Those cases highlight how legal definitions can influence care decisions for vulnerable patients.

Tragically, we are failing as a nation to honor and care for our most vulnerable, an obligation, not an option. We have all but forgotten the tremendous blessings that come from ministering to the medically defenseless.

Caring for the aging and sick is not merely a medical decision but a moral and spiritual imperative. It is a biblical calling that reflects the heart of Jesus Christ, and we should hold it sacred.

Human weakness invites us to imitate Christ, even amid emotional strain, injustice, or systems that prioritize outcomes over dignity. Christ did not seek revenge, nor did He turn away from His suffering but willingly entered it for the sake of others, offering and sacrificing Himself in loving obedience and faithfulness to the Father.

He calls us to do the same - to remain faithful - and teaches us how to love, even under the hardest, most uncomfortable, and most unfair circumstances.