Charles Piller

And scientists and drug developers and pharma companies can be very clever. They were really good at doing this, really good at finding these compounds and these various biological drugs that could remove the amyloid plaques from the brain very effectively. The problem was they did not arrest or improve the dementia symptoms of the disease. So no one was getting better.

And scientists and drug developers and pharma companies can be very clever. They were really good at doing this, really good at finding these compounds and these various biological drugs that could remove the amyloid plaques from the brain very effectively. The problem was they did not arrest or improve the dementia symptoms of the disease. So no one was getting better.

And these drugs, many of them had terrible side effects that could be extremely dangerous, sometimes lethal. And so because of this terrible combination of, you know, the effectiveness of removing the amyloids, but the ineffectiveness of benefiting patients, there was a lot of discouragement about the amyloid hypothesis. People began to say, is this really the right path we're walking down?

And these drugs, many of them had terrible side effects that could be extremely dangerous, sometimes lethal. And so because of this terrible combination of, you know, the effectiveness of removing the amyloids, but the ineffectiveness of benefiting patients, there was a lot of discouragement about the amyloid hypothesis. People began to say, is this really the right path we're walking down?

Or should we be pursuing other scientific avenues that might be more fruitful, more effective? And what happened was right about this time, 2006, after a bunch of these failures in drug development, came this experiment out of the University of Minnesota that appeared in Nature magazine.

Or should we be pursuing other scientific avenues that might be more fruitful, more effective? And what happened was right about this time, 2006, after a bunch of these failures in drug development, came this experiment out of the University of Minnesota that appeared in Nature magazine.

And lo and behold, it instilled new hope, new understanding, and new confidence in the proponents of the amyloid hypothesis that, yes, we're on the right track. We haven't found the right substance yet that is going to be the cure or the substance that really hits its mark and starts to really arrest the symptoms of the disease.

And lo and behold, it instilled new hope, new understanding, and new confidence in the proponents of the amyloid hypothesis that, yes, we're on the right track. We haven't found the right substance yet that is going to be the cure or the substance that really hits its mark and starts to really arrest the symptoms of the disease.

But we are going to get there because we know this experiment has in a way led the way. Now, it wasn't the only experiment like that. There were others as well, but this one was pivotal because it came at a critical time and it resulted in a gigantic, gigantic influence. gigantic influx of funding and interest in the field.

But we are going to get there because we know this experiment has in a way led the way. Now, it wasn't the only experiment like that. There were others as well, but this one was pivotal because it came at a critical time and it resulted in a gigantic, gigantic influence. gigantic influx of funding and interest in the field.

So that's where we were that moment with Matthew Schrag, him thinking about the experiment, and him seeing this might have been based on doctored images that really caught my attention.

So that's where we were that moment with Matthew Schrag, him thinking about the experiment, and him seeing this might have been based on doctored images that really caught my attention.

We both, in a way, were kind of stunned because we realized, if true, if his concerns were well-founded, then it might call into question a very important experiment that could cast doubt on this ongoing research associated with the amyloid hypothesis.

We both, in a way, were kind of stunned because we realized, if true, if his concerns were well-founded, then it might call into question a very important experiment that could cast doubt on this ongoing research associated with the amyloid hypothesis.

Well, I think increasingly it has been talked about. I think one of the pieces of evidence that is I mentioned earlier, again, I have very mixed feelings about this, is RFK Jr. and Jay Bhattacharya both brought it up in their comments to Congress during their confirmation hearings. But I guess I would put it this way.

Well, I think increasingly it has been talked about. I think one of the pieces of evidence that is I mentioned earlier, again, I have very mixed feelings about this, is RFK Jr. and Jay Bhattacharya both brought it up in their comments to Congress during their confirmation hearings. But I guess I would put it this way.

When I originally wrote an article about this finding in Science Magazine in 2022, there was a lot of uproar in the scientific community about it, a lot of concern about it. And there was a fair amount of coverage in the regular media, but not to the extent where it was like became household conversation, obviously. But it raised a lot of ruckus in the scientific community, for sure.

When I originally wrote an article about this finding in Science Magazine in 2022, there was a lot of uproar in the scientific community about it, a lot of concern about it. And there was a fair amount of coverage in the regular media, but not to the extent where it was like became household conversation, obviously. But it raised a lot of ruckus in the scientific community, for sure.

And so what's different now is that I've gone back and I've done years of research on Alzheimer's disease, on the amyloid hypothesis, and on the science behind all these things.

And so what's different now is that I've gone back and I've done years of research on Alzheimer's disease, on the amyloid hypothesis, and on the science behind all these things.