Charles Piller

unfortunately, many of them began to get dementia, dementia described as Alzheimer's disease. So suddenly Alzheimer's disease became a very important, very important kind of disease to study. And a lot of money went into it. A lot of ideas came out.

unfortunately, many of them began to get dementia, dementia described as Alzheimer's disease. So suddenly Alzheimer's disease became a very important, very important kind of disease to study. And a lot of money went into it. A lot of ideas came out.

And the prevalent idea, the idea that gained the most power in the field, that had the most currency among scientists and physicians and funders and journals, everybody, was something called the amyloid hypothesis. And as I said before, what this involves is...

And the prevalent idea, the idea that gained the most power in the field, that had the most currency among scientists and physicians and funders and journals, everybody, was something called the amyloid hypothesis. And as I said before, what this involves is...

The deposits of amyloid protein that build up in the brain cause a cascade of biochemical effects in the brain that eventually lead to dementia, cell death, and the terrible symptoms of the disease. This was really very widely accepted. And so what happened was they built a lot of new drugs around this idea, drugs that attack the amyloid plaques and try to remove them from the brain.

The deposits of amyloid protein that build up in the brain cause a cascade of biochemical effects in the brain that eventually lead to dementia, cell death, and the terrible symptoms of the disease. This was really very widely accepted. And so what happened was they built a lot of new drugs around this idea, drugs that attack the amyloid plaques and try to remove them from the brain.

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.