The dubious ethics of calling something a "cure" for Alzheimer's

A number of articles in the popular press (such as this one) have discussed a new putative "cure" for Alzheimer's disease involving drugs which prevent the aggregation of small numbers of amyloid fragment. This is based on recent research (about both the plaques and a drug which may influence their formation) which stresses the importance of preventing or clearing amyloid plaques to slow the progression of the disease or even reverse damage incurred by these plaques. However, many such drugs which have attempted to target plaque formation have failed during clinical trials. Doubtlessly, more research should be done, and my heart goes out to the families who follow any news which might save their loved ones from this illness. Still, there's a part of me that gets angry when a new model or research topic suggests we may "cure" such a tricky pathology so quickly. I want that to happen like anyone does, but the chronic cycle of raised hopes and long-delayed disappointments does a disservice to patients, and makes medical researchers seem increasingly disreputable. Though any advance is exciting, I wish they would be more considerate and modest in their claims about their research.