Article contains a lot of words like “suggest” and “maybe,” and no actual statistical data. The implication from the headline may be correct or may be a false conclusion drawn from statistical trends driven by other, unidentified factors.
Based on the quoted statements, the researchers themselves seem like they believe that they’re justified in following this question, but not sufficiently justified in making any solid conclusions.
If you have time to read the associated studies, it might be worth it, but the linked article itself is mostly premature fluff, and the title and excerpt are 100% clickbait.
Anytime an article says “here’s what we know” I classify them as quota articles.
Sciencealert generates all content by AI.
If you’re worried about Alzheimer’s just use tobacco. Nicotine is neuroprotective. I’m sure there are lower risk ways to use tobacco, but don’t ask doctors about them.
Smoking is a significant risk factor for Alzheimer’s so if nicotine itself helps then it’s definitely not by smoking.
If you just want the nicotene, vape. The worst parts of tobacco is in the smoking. (The second worst are in the dipping.)
The click bait title would suggest Alzheimer is a prion disease. There is zero evidence of that.
The article implies it as well. This article says it is as well: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2019/05/414326/alzheimers-disease-double-prion-disorder-study-shows
