5422 stories
·
17 followers

The dementia that often strikes in midlife — and the signs people miss

1 Comment

If you’ve heard of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), it may be because of Bruce Willis or Wendy Williams — two celebrities whose diagnoses in recent years have shed light on this infrequently discussed neurodegenerative disease. Though FTD is relatively rare, accounting for about 5 percent to 10 percent of all dementia cases and affecting an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 people in the United States, it’s the most common form of early-onset dementia.

In fact, 60 percent of people who get diagnosed with it are ages 45 to 64, decades younger than the average person diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease (which causes most cases of dementia). And yet, experts believe this is a significant undercount because it’s “rare enough that most medical providers, even specialists, don’t have experience with it, and so they don’t know what it looks like,” said Brad Dickerson, neurologist at the Mass General Brigham Neuroscience Institute and director of the Frontotemporal Disorders Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital.

The initial symptoms of FTD also diverge sharply from those of the more common Alzheimer’s disease because of the parts of the brain it attacks. FTD often starts “in the front of the brain, which is very important for behavior, regulation of social interactions, addiction, drive, organizing and planning,” said Bruce Miller, a professor of neurology and director of the Edward and Pearl Fein Memory and Aging Center at the University of California at San Francisco.

So, FTD generally manifests first with behavior or mood changes — rather than the memory loss and thinking problems of Alzheimer’s (which typically first affects the areas of the brain responsible for these tasks, including the hippocampus). It’s the reason FTD is often misread as a psychiatric issue, Miller said. On average, it takes about three to four years for people to get a diagnosis of FTD, according to the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration.

Below, experts explain why FTD tends to hit earlier in life than other dementias, the often-overlooked signs to know and what care for people with the condition looks like.

Why FTD starts earlier than other forms of dementia

Unlike Alzheimer’s, most people with FTD are diagnosed before age 65. The question of why is still being studied — but experts think the answer has to do with the underlying cause.

Roughly 20 percent of cases are thought to be caused by any one of several genetic mutations. Two of them produce abnormal proteins with toxic effects on brain cells, and one of them leads to a deficiency in a protein that neurons need, Dickerson explained. These are readily passed down: You only need one bad copy of any of these genes to almost certainly develop FTD, he said, meaning that a child of a person with a mutation has a 50 percent chance of inheriting it.

Genetic mutations can “drive the biology” of FTD, starting early in life, Miller said. “By the time someone reaches the age of 40 or 50, there may have been many years [during which] that genetic cause has wreaked havoc in their brain.”

Experts also think yet-to-be-discovered genes could play a role in some of the remaining 80 percent of cases. After all, as many as 40 percent of people with FTD have a family history.

One area of research is focused on genetic variants that, individually, are not disease-causing abnormalities, Dickerson said, but that could increase risk when they occur together. It’s thought that if you inherit particular sets of these genes, you could be made more vulnerable by other risk factors, perhaps environmental ones, than someone without a similar genetic pattern. (It’s not clear what these environmental factors might be yet, but Dickerson made the comparison to the known association between air pollution and an increased likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s and the fact that not everyone who lives in a polluted area will develop the disease.)

Ultimately, Miller said, the “number of FTD cases that have a genetic basis is likely quite high,” which pushes down the age of onset. As for the cases where a genetic link isn’t apparent, experts are still figuring out the contributors, though lifestyle is thought to be important. Research suggests that even those with a genetic mutation tied to FTD could delay symptoms if they are cognitively active and exercise regularly, Miller said. He added that head trauma is a risk factor that researchers are investigating, too.

Key early signs of FTD that are easy to miss

The symptoms of FTD depend on where exactly in the brain the condition starts. If it initially hits the temporal lobe, particularly on the left side, it’ll affect language skills, including the ability to speak and comprehend — causing a condition known as primary progressive aphasia. With this kind of FTD, people tend to get referred to a neurologist and diagnosed quickly, Dickerson said.

But as noted above, FTD most often begins in the frontal lobe and its earliest symptoms typically include behavior or personality changes — called behavioral-variant FTD. The most common ones are easily mistaken as signs of psychiatric conditions such as depression or bipolar disorder, or dismissed as the effects of stress, burnout or even a midlife crisis. They include:

  • Apathy. “People lose interest in doing things, they move less and they are less interested in the stories of loved ones,” Miller said.
  • Addictive behaviors. They might turn to compulsive drinking, drugs, sex or several of the above, Miller pointed out.
  • Loss of empathy. People with FTD tend to become alienated from their partners, children, friends and co-workers — and a big reason for that is losing the ability to feel what others are feeling, Miller said.
  • Difficulty with planning, organizing and managing money. FTD often hinders executive function, which refers to high-level cognitive skills including problem-solving, abstract thinking, regulating sensory input and decision-making. One way this could manifest: Dickerson said he’s seen many patients who have fallen victim to scams that might have seemed obviously problematic to someone without FTD.
  • Disinhibition. FTD can cause people to lose their filter or start acting in ways that are socially inappropriate, Dickerson said. He gave the example of someone urinating in a public bathroom without closing the door behind them.

Former labor secretary misused funds and drank on the job, report finds

The wrong people are paying off their mortgages

Loved ones and friends often notice these changes first. A person with FTD will generally lack insight into their symptoms and might not think anything is wrong, Dickerson said. They might relay a different story to a doctor, which can further complicate diagnosis.

The stigma surrounding both dementia and psychiatric conditions can also lead people with FTD and their family members to avoid seeking care. If they do, they often wind up getting referred to a psychiatrist, Dickerson said, rather than a neurologist.

By the time a diagnosis arrives, the disease has often progressed. “FTD moves about twice as fast as the typical Alzheimer’s disease,” Miller said, with an average life expectancy around seven to 13 years. “As the disease progresses, the apathy becomes more profound, and people completely immobilize,” he said. Some people develop motor problems, such as tremors; as many as 30 percent of those with FTD wind up with symptoms consistent with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a motor neuron disease that causes weakness, muscle wasting and difficulty swallowing.

It’s the reason Miller said it’s important to “think about the brain, and the frontal lobes in particular, in any case of dramatic change in behavior or personality.”

A helpful point to remember: Dementia is often understood as a loss, for instance, of memory or reasoning skills, and there can certainly be a loss of organization with FTD. But many early symptoms of FTD also reflect “a gain of personality traits that were not there before,” Dickerson said. Ones that register as inappropriate or out of character should especially prompt a visit to a neurologist. “We can help families manage it if we get in early,” Miller said.

What treatment looks like for frontotemporal dementia

There is currently no cure for FTD. Care involves working with a team of experts — physicians, nurses, psychologists — to manage symptoms and behaviors, Miller said. “That often means thinking about, ‘Which ones of these [symptoms] need to be managed, and which can we ignore?’” Some may be harmful to the person with FTD and those around them, while others may be minor enough to learn to accept and work around.

Some people with FTD may benefit from the antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), Miller noted. “They can decrease irritability and compulsive behaviors and improve mood.” Those who have language deficits may also find speech therapy to be helpful, at least in early stages.

Both experts are hopeful, however, about the momentum they’re seeing in treatment research, which has been supported by growing awareness. Dickerson pointed to clinical trials that aim to restore levels of the deficient protein in one form of FTD. Miller noted studies attempting to lower tau — one of the abnormal proteins that can drive FTD — and gene-editing efforts to “turn off or turn down the bad genes” in other types of dementia. These approaches are “not quite ready yet for frontotemporal dementia,” but when they are, “it’s going to be really exciting.”

Read the whole story
mareino
20 minutes ago
reply
Well, this is terrifying
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

Asteroid Mission

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Lander, this is Houston. There's been a request that you turn clipping back on and instead set the mass to 1kg. The theorists believe that will be pretty funny.
Read the whole story
mareino
40 minutes ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
alt_text_bot
53 minutes ago
reply
Lander, this is Houston. There's been a request that you turn clipping back on and instead set the mass to 1kg. The theorists believe that will be pretty funny.

Democrats should vow to surrender in the Canada trade war

1 Share
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks about the trade war with the United States on August 24, 2026. (Photo by ANDREJ IVANOV / AFP via Getty Images)

Donald Trump has plunged the United States into a new and destructive round of the trade war with Canada.

Obviously, the U.S.-Canada relationship is a bigger deal for Canada than for the United States since we’re a much larger country with a wider set of global entanglements. But fundamentally, Canada really does matter quite a bit to the United States, probably more than any other single country. And I think Americans — especially anti-Trump Americans — are sleeping on the extent to which this is viewed in Canada as an existential moment.

The nature of Trump’s demands, which include things that have long been on the U.S. side of the bilateral-trade docket but also speak to language arrangements that are at the core of Canadian national identity as well as Canada’s basic sovereign right to conduct trade relations with other countries, is stark. And Trump contextualized those demands by snarking that he was going to turn Canada into the 51st state, a “joke” that JD Vance couldn’t help himself but repeat at the height of the crisis.

Democrats have uniformly opposed these moves, as far as I can tell, but they’ve hardly risen to meet the moment in a diplomatically or politically sophisticated manner, nor are they genuinely attentive to the dynamics on the Canadian side of the border.

Worst of all, Gavin Newsom in an interview with Canadian television committed to dealing with Canada more respectfully but not to reversing the tariffs.

This didn’t attract a lot of attention in American circles, but obviously Canadians were paying attention. And their interpretation is that the most prominent anti-Trump figure who bothered to come on Canadian media and discuss this was basically embracing a bipartisan squeeze play to crush Canadian sovereignty.

I think the people I quoted above are overreading the level of intentionality in Newsom’s remarks and underrating the extent to which he’s just not very smart.

But I also think that Democrats should pay attention to this reaction and do everything in their power to steer away from this dynamic. Trump’s conduct has been truly destructive and shocking to the conscience, and Democrats should say that.

For now, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is standing strong. For now, the Canadian people are behind him. And Democrats should say loud and clear that he is right to stand strong and that if they wield power in 2027, they will do whatever they can to roll back this trade war, and if they govern in 2029, they will absolutely end it.

Subscribe now

Don’t just criticize Trump’s actions — positively repudiate them and promise to reverse them. Do it on Twitter and in the American media, but in Canadian media, too. Newsom is wrong on the politics and wrong on the merits.

The strategic logic of vowing to surrender

Trump may be deplored abroad, but Democrats should recognize that they’re not as well-liked as they may think.

One reason for that is that when Joe Biden was president, he actually didn’t roll back the vast majority of Trump’s tariffs from his previous term.

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were broadly free-trade presidents, and free trade is the historic legacy of the Democratic Party from the Jefferson-Jackson era through to F.D.R. and J.F.K. But in the 1970s and 1980s, congressional Democrats became trade-skeptical, and most Democrats in Congress voted against NAFTA and many other modern trade agreements.

The Biden administration, which opted essentially for continuity, was sort of paralyzed by its labor union ties from rolling back any of the Trump One tariffs.

But while Biden deferred to labor on trade, he did not defer to them on everything — in particular the Keystone XL pipeline. Environmentalists wanted to kill this project, so Biden killed it, even though American building trades and the Canadian government wanted it. None of this is on a par with Trump’s behavior, but it was high-handed and alienating and has made Canadians worry about a good-cop, bad-cop dynamic.

But here’s the problem.

Trump’s logic is that while a trade war will be bad for 340 million Americans, it will be worse on a per capita basis for 40 million Canadians, so at the end of the day the Canadians will cave. Carney’s contrary logic is that this is an existential threat for Canada and basically pointless from an American perspective. His constituents are willing to pay a price to preserve the True North strong and free, while Trump’s constituents are being asked to take further blows on the cost of living to feed the ego of a corrupt psychotic.

Carney’s strategy, though, depends to an extent on his model of the Democrats. If Democrats will surrender in the trade war, then the best strategy for Canada is to stay strong, bear the pain north of the border, inflict pain south of the border, make Trump look bad, and help Democrats win. But if Democrats are just going to play good cop / bad cop, then it raises the question of whether Canada can really hold out forever. If no help is on the way, it might make sense to cave and deliver Trump a big win he can brag about.

The need to avoid a hollow victory

That’s bad for Democrats.

It’s also bad for America. Entrenching the idea that American presidents can make political hay out of bullying friendly countries with negative-sum trade dynamics would be a disaster for American commerce and foreign policy.

The United States simply cannot prevail in prolonged geopolitical competition with China unless citizens of other democratic societies sincerely believe that American power is preferable to the Chinese Communist Party. This is something prior American leaders took for granted, but Trump has actually made much of the world prefer Chinese leadership — part of an overall disastrous approach to China policy that is pointlessly obsessed with bilateral export balances rather than the strategic balance of power.

Any American administration would try to get some trade concessions from Canada — more access to their markets for our dairy farmers, for example — and that’s totally fine. The fact that countries are friendly doesn’t mean they have no disagreements.

And Democrats caring about alliances and international cooperation shouldn’t mean committing to being suckers or to endless free-riding. But there’s genuinely nothing on the U.S.-Canada trade docket that is worth redefining the basic nature of the relationship over. Canada has long been extremely helpful to the United States whenever something really important comes up — from taking in diverted flights on 9/11 to sending troops to Afghanistan, or just the reality that the countries have a cooperative binational electricity grid — and we should act in accordance with that.

Today’s post is free to read, but tomorrow’s on the state of fundraising going into the midterms will be for paid subscribers. Upgrade to get the full article tomorrow morning:

Subscribe now

I don’t think Trump’s bullying approach to trade policy is likely to work, but I also don’t want it to work. If it’s perceived as working, it will be repeated and America will be seen by the world as tyrannizing our neighbors and people everywhere will want to see us brought low. But there’s no need for any of this! Democrats should commit to simply ending the trade war with Canada on a unilateral basis — total surrender — and then reboot discussions after trust and goodwill have been restored.

Free trade is a winning issue for Democrats

Beyond the specifics of labor union minutiae, I feel like ever since 2016, Democrats have been mindfucked by the idea that Trump protectionism is a stroke of political genius.

It’s true that in 2016 he flipped the G.O.P. to anti-trade and he also won the election. That being said, he also flipped the G.O.P. into opposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare! The latter is an unambiguous case of Trump dropping a high-profile unpopular G.O.P. policy commitment.

Tariffs, by contrast, are very unpopular:

Notably, while free trade is broadly popular with everyone, it’s especially popular with Democratic Socialists of America-curious left-wing insurgents. It’s a free-market idea on the merits, but socialists see it as expressing strong opposition to Trump, and they like it.

Here I’ll concede that if you look beyond the Canada situation and consider tariffs writ large, Democrats do face a bit of a conundrum.

Democrats tend to spend too much time cooking up “big ideas” and not enough time thinking about priorities. And given that Trump’s overall tariff structure is bringing in a lot of revenue and that the budget deficit is currently something that we should be worried about, ditching the tariffs is yet another promise that Democrats should have to slot in among competing priorities.

My pitch for making tariff repeal a major priority is that it hits the quadfecta of being disproportionately progressive, and polling well, and being certified as a good idea by wonkish technocrats, and being welcomed by the business community.

I understand that it would be a bitter pill for the advocacy community to pencil this in ahead of a new child-care program or whatever, and certainly it’s less exciting, but excitement is overrated.

The other thing I would note is that in budgetary terms, Democrats have grown gun-shy about repealing gimmicky Trump ideas like “no tax on tips.” And I get the caution there. But to say that you need to keep unpopular tariffs because you need the revenue and then refuse to close tax loopholes to raise revenue because you’re worried about opinion blowback doesn’t make sense. There’s no course of action with zero political risk or downside, so given that reality, you might as well make the choice that makes more sense on the merits.

The whole fiscal logjam clearly requires some bigger conversations among party stakeholders.

The conflict with Canada, though, is easy. Just say no.

Share

Read the whole story
mareino
1 day ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

US can't deport students for criticizing Israel, judge says | AP News

1 Comment and 2 Shares

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — Citing the importance of the First Amendment, a federal judge in California says the U.S. government is unconstitutionally silencing critics of Israel’s war in Gaza and others as part of the Trump administration ‘s quest to deport noncitizens who it says disrupted college campuses while expressing their views.

Judge Noël Wise, in a ruling Friday, delivered a victory for The Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at Stanford University, which has said some international students were afraid to speak out because of the deportation threat.

“Freedom of speech is illusory if we are only ‘free’ to express complementary views about the government and its leaders,” the judge wrote.

The decision largely piggybacks on findings from nearly a year ago by a U.S. district judge in Boston, who ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution when it targeted people who are not citizens for deportation solely for supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel.

Wise wrote that the freedoms of speech and the press are “foundational to America’s enduring democracy.” The judge cited free-speech and vagueness flaws that violate the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment as she struck down portions of the provisions that the federal government follows regarding deportations.

Wise cited retaliation in March 2025 by U.S. immigration authorities against people who engaged in speech supporting the Palestinians and against Israel’s actions — which a growing number of experts, including those commissioned by a U.N. body, have said amount to genocide. The judge also cited retaliation against people who were critical of Charlie Kirk after the Turning Point USA co-founder was assassinated last September.

“Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like,” the judge in San Jose said.

“This downward spiral is antithetical to our Constitution that recognizes our right to speak freely,” she added. “Here you can simultaneously hate the content of a person’s speech and love the country that cherishes the freedom to allow it. Zealous protection of our Constitutional right to free speech is a provocative demonstration of our country’s powerful lack of fear.”

The Justice Department did not respond Saturday to a message seeking comment on the decision.

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

George Porteous, the editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily, responded to the ruling by saying on X: “The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation. Today’s victory means they won’t have to.”

Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which brought the lawsuit, praised the ruling.

“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” Fitzpatrick said in a release.

In her decision, Wise said it was clear that the government’s tactics has had an effect on college campuses.

“The government has offered a chilling message regarding protected speech — speak out against Israel or in support of Palestinians and we will revoke your visa and deport you. Behave. Noncitizen students heard the warning and heeded. And, as the idiom goes, the silence is deafening,” the judge wrote.

At The Stanford Daily, lawfully present noncitizens at the paper have quit, withheld articles, refused assignments, requested articles be taken down, and asked for anonymity due to fear of adverse immigration consequences, Wise noted.

She said noncitizens have the same First Amendment rights as citizens and yet were left to guess what the U.S. foreign policy was at any given moment and on any given subject.

“This is an incomprehensible standard,” she said. “While the Court understands that the government has been granted considerable discretion on foreign policy and immigration matters, that discretion must nevertheless still ensure that ordinary people can understand what the law permits and prohibits.”

Wise added: “Our Constitutional right to freedom of speech guarantees people the right to express — through their words, actions, or assembly — opinions that may be repugnant, views that run counter to prevailing political norms, or beliefs that otherwise challenge the country’s domestic or foreign policy, military engagement, or war.”

Read the whole story
mareino
4 days ago
reply
Just a few years ago, "the US government deports people who criticize Israel" would have been the sort of cartoonishly antisemitic propaganda that would clearly be a Russian or Iranian fake news operation. Now it's heading for the Supreme Court.
Washington, District of Columbia
acdha
5 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Europe's renewables boom is becoming a gas demand bust | Reuters

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Read the whole story
mareino
4 days ago
reply
A huge off-the-field military victory for Europe
Washington, District of Columbia
acdha
6 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Secret

2 Shares


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
The good news is you can put beer back there.


Today's News:
Read the whole story
mareino
4 days ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
acdha
4 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories