“Settled” in the deranged world of Alzheimer’s science

An international body of scientists who believe in their righteousness. Journals, conferences, and grants that suppress dissent. You have billions of dollars in the taxpayer, Big Pharma, and venture capital. Decades of research and precious little to show for it all.

I am not describing Covid, global warming or any other highly politicized scientific debate. I’m talking about Alzheimer’s research. The implications for the rest of science, policy, and education are profound and troubling.

Everyone in the United States knows about Alzheimer’s disease. Audiences across the country have read (or at least seen) The Notebook. Most recently, The Father, starring Anthony Hopkins, won two Oscars and made everyone cry.

Most of us cry because we know someone who has. We know what it is, we know what it does—and we know it’s scary.

All of this means that we care about Alzheimer’s just as we care about cancer, heart disease, and others that touch us personally. You know, though, despite being officially diagnosed over a century ago; despite all the grants, institutes and money poured into it; and despite the American self-interest in solving it, have we not yet discovered a single remedy?

Zero. In fact, we don’t even have any treatment.

Why not? To begin with, we may be focusing on the wrong thing.

Since then Dr. Alois Alzheimer first identified the disease that now bears his name, and we became interested in the plaques found in the brains of deceased patients. Subsequent research on the disease was slow, but gained momentum in the 1970s, when Congress created the National Institute on Aging (under the National Institutes of Health), and then in the 1980s with private research. institutions join the fray.

The main driver of these plaques was finally discovered in 1984 and identified as Amyloid beta. The opening was electric and quickly found supporters.

Three years later, in 1987, STAT News reported that a new study “supported the orthodoxy at the time that mutations in a gene called APP increased levels of amyloid and caused Alzheimer’s in middle age.”

By 1991, the journal Science reported that many scientists believed that the amyloid hypothesis had been solved. There are even cases that seriously challenge the hypothesis, including a 1991 study that found “aging Alzheimer’s patients had amyloid plaques in their brains, but so did the brains of people of the same age who died with no signs of dementia.”

At the same time, scientists began to wonder if amyloid was a disease or a sign of brain damage; say, the difference between an incurable disease and a grave after its consequences.

However, the science is settled and alternative hypotheses are no longer considered.

In 2019, STAT News revealed, “In more than two dozen interviews, scientists whose ideas fell outside dogma described how for decades those who believed in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research into alternative ideas: They influenced what research was published in top journals, which scientists got funding, who got tenure.” and was given a place to speak at prestigious scientific conferences.

Deviating from dogma can get you labeled a “traitor,” explained one prominent scientist, and it can cost adherents published articles, prominent posts, research grant money, and speaking engagements at prestigious conferences.

There’s even private investment tied to the novel Alzheimer’s research, Science and STAT News reported. how can? Before investing in a dissenting scientist’s idea, venture capitalists often sought input from top Alzheimer’s disease scientists who rejected alternative hypotheses.

100th Anniversary of Dr. Discovery of Alzheimer’s This may be the year when skeptics have their say, pointing out that despite decades of research and funding, there is still no cure. But that same year, Science reports, “nature’s amazing paper broke.”

The study built on existing theories of amyloid, but discovered what its author called “the first substance identified in brain tissue in an Alzheimer’s study that causes memory loss.”

It went off like a bomb, reviving a dogma that was showing signs of aging after decades of failure. Over the next 15 years, the 2006 study was cited in more than 2,000 other scientific papers.

Then in 2022, many credible scientific researchers will see it as a hoax.

Scams are literally using distorted images to do their job. It turns out that the “thing” may not even exist.

But the damage is done. Since the study was first published, millions of man-hours and billions of dollars have been spent to produce its findings. On the contrary, minds that would work towards modern progress have gone astray. Conclusions based on false assumptions are flawed, as are all studies based on current flawed research based on 2006 findings.

In fact, one (or more) unscrupulous players could not have done it without the help of senior scientists who jealously defended their theories, although they certainly caused great harm – and suppressed the rebels who dared to ask questions. is she

“Things [had] It went from a scientific study to almost a religious belief system, and people didn’t question it, or even question it,” Zaven Khachaturian, a former scientist at the National Institute on Aging, told STAT three years before that particular report was released.

None of this is to say that the people who dedicate their lives to Alzheimer’s research are some kind of evil cult. They were just people, meaning they were greedy, protective, arrogant and prone to groupthink.

“It’s hard to enter a field where there are so many strong voices supporting a cause,” said INmune Bio CEO Dr. Raymond Tesi explained to STAT News. “Alzheimer’s has egos, superstars and big personalities unlike anything I’ve seen anywhere else.”

These men and women had lucrative careers to protect. STAT senior writer Sharon Begley concluded: “By admitting the doubt, ‘let alone being wrong, it’s not only a blow to ego, it’s life-threatening.’

“There were very big egos here, and they couldn’t bear to be wrong,” says neuroscientist Nicholas Robakis of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. “It wasn’t science anymore.”

The above describes how quickly greed, pride and group-think arose Even a strictly scientific field of study can get out of hand – so many Americans across all parties and incomes and races have a personal interest in figuring it out.

If so, how easy can it be in politically fragmented environments? The best scientists are in fields that offer access to power, not just money and prestige.

In areas like global warming, naysayers (or just skeptics) are called “extremists”? Just this week, Al Gore compared those skeptics to police in Ulvado, Texas, whose inaction led to the deaths of 19 schoolchildren and two teachers.

Billions of dollars more are flowing into the field than Alzheimer’s research. On behalf of global warming, organizations like the United Nations join powerful state actors on the planet to shape policy and economics based on approved research.

The most alarming claims scientists have ever made are global warming canceledyet they walk as faithfully and faithfully as ever.

What about Covid science, where famous scientists have admitted mistakes and even lies; But does it drive forward shamelessly, mocking and censoring anyone who dares to speak out against them?

There – as in Alzheimer’s, as in global warming – the science is not settled. The truth is, science is never really settled. Instead, the only things known are power, money and influence, as the experts say.

These weaknesses are human weaknesses. And behind the totem of “settled science” it’s just people; as it were behind various veneers of authority. Ultimately, these claims to power and secret knowledge are our pride, greed, fear, and imperfection.


Open a comment by joining the federal community.

sign up for

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.