You go to a doctor – usually a neurologist – ask about natural or lifestyle-oriented therapeutic methods for dementia – and you often look into blank eyes, at worst into an aggressively wrinkled forehead “Don’t give me that, all dangerous nonsense, there are only a few pharmacological approaches that may really work!” 

In your journey of self-directed prevention and treatment of cognitive impairment and dementia you will often, probably even frequently, encounter this incredible narrow-mindedness among many medical doctors who question lifestyle-related causes and risk factors, and denigrate a causal therapeutic approach based on changes in lifestyle, the supply of vital resources and the reduction of pollutants as a story from the “realm of fantasy”. Hopefully you have not experienced it personally. 

How do you deal with it? You try to inform yourself more broadly, for example via the websites of Kompetenz statt Demenz, but of course you may still wonder, where is the evidence?


For this reason, we have provided a selection of current studies and reviews on the page “Alzheimer Research” and listed them chronologically together with the conclusions drawn by the authors. The studies listed there clearly show that targeted interventions, whether with micronutrients, sport and exercise, sleep hygiene or mental measures, may indeed help to regain lost cognitive abilities. They thus provide you with an important support for your argumentation on your difficult way through the narrow-mindedness and helplessness of the conventional medicine. The studies are sorted by category and the most recent studies are listed first. 

Intervention studies – also double-blind placebo-controlled – are the most interesting ones, as they directly assess the effects of a treatment. However, it does not always have to be a double-blind placebo-controlled study, because effects become visible even without blinding and some interventions cannot be blinded by the authors anyway (e.g. in the area of movement or mental interventions). 

Meta-analyses are interesting in the sense that they “pool” several or even many individual studies. However, the “pooling” of several studies is difficult and can contain statistical errors, and the selection of studies can also exhibit a “bias” (systematic error). A positive result of a metastudy at least provides additional safety. 

Reviews are also very helpful, as they look at a topic from an overview perspective and summarise it.

So if you are interested in a brief overview of the background of different therapeutic approaches and their scientific background, just go to this page: Alzheimer Research

You will also find direct links to the studies on Pubmed and some are also available free-of-charge in the full version. If you want to print the whole thing to go, just click on the right mouse button and “Print” and you will get the page in a quite clear print format.

A final note: Science never makes absolute statements “ex cathedra” but reflects the state of current research. Studies may be incorrect or even manipulated and their content may be overtaken by new findings. Therefore it is important to stay up to date and we at “Kompetenz statt Demenz” continuously follow up the relevant topics. For this reason, the most recent studies always come first and some may disappear from the list over time, but this is the sign of the further development of scientific knowledge.

Conclusion: Don’t let yourself be confused on your own path of self-responsible treatment and prevention of dementia and make up your own mind as much as possible! Use reliable sources of information to support your decision for any type of treatment and do not allow yourself to be discouraged. We at ‘Kompetenz statt Demenz’ hope to make our contribution!

PS: And if you happen to come across an important paper, please send us the link!

Photo by Michael Longmire on Unsplash

Read More

The American researcher Dr. Pat McGeer investigated whether viruses could possibly cause the changes in brain cells which are  typical of dementia. He stained brain cells of patients who died with AD using a different staining method. Although he found no evidence of a virus, he found vast amounts of certain brain cells (so-called microglia). These cells only appear in such big amount under  one condition: inflammation! Dr. McGeer also found that microglia had already been discovered in the brain of dementia patients back in 1919. Although this theory was not further investigated at that time, it is currently receiving new attention.

In 2004, Dr. Scott Little and his colleagues investigated whether certain bacteria (e.g. chlamydia) might also be possible causes of AD. Dr. Scott and his team had already isolated chlamydia from nine out of ten AD patient brains. In subsequent animal experiments, it was shown that chlamydia can remain in the brain undisturbed by the immune system. Even after three months, the bacteria were still detectable in the animal brains. The researchers were also able to detect certain protein deposits. These deposits were larger and more frequent the more Chlamydia has spread in the brain.

US researcher Herbert Allen has also put forward the hypothesis that bacteria adhere to surfaces as biofilms and are therefore largely resistant to immune attacks or antibiotics. This prompted him to ask whether bacterial biofilms might also play a role in Alzheimer’s disease. When Allen searched for biofilms in the brains of deceased Alzheimer’s patients, he found them at the same sites in the hippocampus as the amyloid plaques. The key factor of innate immunity (the so-called toll-like receptor 2,TLR2) was also present in the same region of the Alzheimer’s brain, but not in the healthy controls. The researcher concluded that TLR2 is activated by the presence of bacteria but is blocked by the bacterial biofilm and instead the surrounding tissue is damaged.

These investigations clearly show that not only  the presence of plaques in the brain is responsible for Alzheimer’s dementia, but infectious processes may also play an essential role.  The brain is highly protected by the blood-brain barrier, which controls the passage of molecules into and out of the brain. It is now known that a broad spectrum of pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa (animal unicellular organisms) can still gain access to the brain. 

More on this topic and a tabular overview can be found here…

Moreover, the research results further suggest that even if a brain infection with microorganisms is not the triggering event in the neuropathogenesis ending with Alzheimer’s disease, but merely an opportunistic spread of the pathogen to an already damaged organ, such infections may well aggravate or accelerate the course of the disease.

Moreover, the research results further suggest that even if a brain infection with microorganisms is not the triggering event in the neuropathogenesis ending with Alzheimer’s disease, but merely an opportunistic spread of the pathogen to an already damaged organ, such infections may well aggravate or accelerate the course of the disease.


The connections must, therefore, be multi-causal and it is important not to think in terms of pure repair mechanisms again or to put all energy and money into the medicinal dissolution of plaques, but to question what is causing and systemically so wrong that more and more people are obviously becoming ill. So the  correct question is therefore: what causes our body system to work so wrong that the regeneration of the brain areas is no longer possible?

The answer is largely hidden in our western lifestyle, and this website reports on this in detail.

You can also become active yourself by getting your immune system in shape. You can find some tips on how to do this in this interview with Prof. Spitz and pharmacist Gröber from March 2020!

Interview with Prof. Spit and Apothecary Gröber March 2020! (in German language only, pls use automatic subtitles in YouTube)

The main elements are: vitamin D, vitamin A, vitamin C, zinc and selenium


  1. Akiyama, H., Ikeda, K., Katoh, M., McGeer, E.G, McGeer, P.L. (1992):  Expression of MRP14, 27E10, interferon-α and leukocyte common antigen by reactive microglia in postmortem human brain tissue. Journal of Neuroimmunology 50/2, pp 195-201
  2. Little, C.S, Hammond, C.J., MacIntyre, A., Balin, B.J., Appelt, D.M. (2004): Chlamydia pneumoniae induces Alzheimer-like amyloid plaques in brains of BALB/c mice. Neurobiology of Aging 25/4, pp 419-429
  3. Sochocka, M., Zwolinska, K., Leszek, J. (2017): The Infectious Etiology of Alzheimer’s Disease. Current Neuropharmacology, Volume 15, Number 7, pp. 996-1009(14)
  4. Allen, H.B. (2019): The essential role of biofilms in alzheimer’s disease. Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 3 (2), pp 1-3


Read More

The focus of Alzheimer’s research has been, so far, the molecular process which leads to a change in the brain structure, above all and first in the hippocampus. Here, an increased formation of  amyloid beta (Aß) plaques is observed in the brains of Alzheimer patients. These protein adhesions impair the communication between nerve cells. Such alterations are attributed to ageing and genetic predisposition. As a result, Alzheimer’s research has been searching for years (but without any success) for a drug therapy to eliminate or at least reduce plaque formation. A very monocausal view of the problem.

Thus there are also studies suggesting that plaque formation cannot be the only underlying problem, since there are certainly old people with strongly increased plaque formation who are mentally extremely fit. 

Dementia researcher David Snowdon at the University of Minnesota made an impressive study questioning plaque formation as a monocausal cause in the so-called nun study, in which a total of 678 nuns aged between 76 and 106 participated.

Since 1986 Snowden was allowed to test the mental abilities of the nuns and after their death to examine the brains for signs of dementia. The astonishing result: Some brains of nuns who were mentally fit and active up to old age and had an excellent memory, all had “plaques” like in a severe Alzheimer’s dementia. 

Subsequently and in parallel, other influencing factors were intensively investigated. These included viral and bacterial infections, but most of all chronic inflammations.  In addition, there is the problem of insulin resistance caused by excessive sugar consumption by the population in industrialized countries. Today, it is very likely that Alzheimer’s disease is based not only on genetic factors but also on negative lifestyle factors that promote chronic inflammation and insulin resistance of brain cells. Some doctors even refer to Alzheimer’s disease as type 3 diabetes. Amyloid-ß plaques, on the other hand, are a natural protective mechanism that intents to ensure that no more brain cells perish! They are therefore a warning signal, but not a cause.

You can find detailed considerations on the scientific basics and the cause research here….

At the same time, however, this is a bridge to meaningful Alzheimer’s prevention and treatment. A reduction and avoidance of insulin resistance as well as an anti-inflammatory diet and way of life, among other things by:

If you implement these points widely, your Alzheimer’s risk will drop drastically.

In a study conducted by the University of Leipzig, scientists have identified the potential for preventing Alzheimer’s dementia in Germany. Based on internationally available study results, seven risk factors were specifically investigated: High blood pressure, obesity in middle age, depression, physical inactivity, smoking and low education.  The result: about 50% of dementia cases could be avoided by preventive measures alone regarding these risk factors!

Conclusion: Even if the available numbers correspond to theoretical projections, the vast potential for prevention can still be presumed. Especially in the context of demographic change and the corresponding ageing of the German population, preventive measures and educational programmes on Alzheimer’s dementia such as the KsD project are becoming increasingly important.


[1]  Luck, T. & Riedel-Heller, S.G. Nervenarzt (2016) 87: 1194.

Photo: Maria Teneva

Read More

Despite the significant health problem posed by the disease, only five medical treatments are approved for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), which are intended to control symptoms rather than change the course of the disease. By understanding the overlapping mechanisms of AD pathology, it is possible to get an idea of the complexity of this problem. The treatments currently available have shown frustrating results and some serious side effects that can aggravate a common problem in older people: polypharmacy – many drugs are prescribed, one to cure the side effects caused by the other. While some potential future drugs are being tested, most of them targeting directly at amyloid or tau protein, it is clear that prevention is currently the safest and most effective way to combat AD.

You can find out more about this topic on this page at KsD…

Read More

Support us now!