[CodeToad]

“Cut Alzheimer’s Risk by 394 Percent”

OK, but what happens when cutting it by 394% isn’t enough and you still get Alz? Suffer and die because some Luddite like you that can’t seem to keep up with technology “because it’s just too hard” said so?

I prefer science over old wives tales and ignorance.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “OK, but what happens when cutting it by 394% isn’t enough and you still get Alz?” <<

.
Have an example?

Of course not, because abuse of technology is not really “science,” no matter how much you whine.

Living bodies need life source substances to heal; drugs will never do it, because healing is a cell growing process that cannot be helped by alien poisons no matter how costly their manufacture may be.

[WayneS]

I'm curious as to how risk of ANY kind can be cut by 394%. The maximum possible reduction in the chance of occurrence of a particular event is 100%.

For instance, reducing accident risk from 16 in 100,000 to 8 in 100,000 is a 50% reduction. Reducing it from 16 in 100,000 to zero is still ‘only’ a 100% reduction. Unless someone is playing games and misrepresenting their numbers, there is no way to show a 394% reduction in risk.

Then again, maybe a 394% reduction in the risk of Alzheimer's mean you can actually reduce OTHER people's risk just by being in the same room with them. ; - )