Charles Piller

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.

and have found that the field more generally has been stricken by a large amount of unfortunately apparently doctored research based on misconduct, where images that are central to the scientific findings in important experiments

and have found that the field more generally has been stricken by a large amount of unfortunately apparently doctored research based on misconduct, where images that are central to the scientific findings in important experiments

and in other kinds of experiments that maybe aren't so important, but in a lot of important experiments, had been changed improperly to reflect the experimental hypothesis of the person doing the work. And when you're changing your data, to try to make it look better, you know that you're not proceeding in an honest way.

and in other kinds of experiments that maybe aren't so important, but in a lot of important experiments, had been changed improperly to reflect the experimental hypothesis of the person doing the work. And when you're changing your data, to try to make it look better, you know that you're not proceeding in an honest way.

And so, yes, there has been a lot of interest in the book, a lot of attention paid to it, because it is so important to the millions of Alzheimer's patients in our country. And the many more millions of their loved ones and caregivers, to have the most honest, effective ways of looking at the disease.

And so, yes, there has been a lot of interest in the book, a lot of attention paid to it, because it is so important to the millions of Alzheimer's patients in our country. And the many more millions of their loved ones and caregivers, to have the most honest, effective ways of looking at the disease.

And if there are problems in the way the thinking has gone, if there are cracks in the edifice, if you were, of the institutional authorities of Alzheimer's disease and the most powerful forces, then We need for people to understand that better and understand the importance of it and the meaningfulness of it.

And if there are problems in the way the thinking has gone, if there are cracks in the edifice, if you were, of the institutional authorities of Alzheimer's disease and the most powerful forces, then We need for people to understand that better and understand the importance of it and the meaningfulness of it.

It doesn't mean that nothing associated with the amyloid hypothesis is true and that nothing should be done about it, that no one should ever look at it or think about amyloid proteins. I think even the critics of the hypothesis believe that amyloid proteins have something to do with the disease, but maybe not everything to do with it the way it's been often described.

It doesn't mean that nothing associated with the amyloid hypothesis is true and that nothing should be done about it, that no one should ever look at it or think about amyloid proteins. I think even the critics of the hypothesis believe that amyloid proteins have something to do with the disease, but maybe not everything to do with it the way it's been often described.

And consequently, yes, there's been a lot of anger at the messenger, you might say me, in bringing this to light. But I think what's interesting is that the criticisms of the book, and there have been criticisms from scientists who are deeply committed to the amyloid hypothesis and whose careers have

And consequently, yes, there's been a lot of anger at the messenger, you might say me, in bringing this to light. But I think what's interesting is that the criticisms of the book, and there have been criticisms from scientists who are deeply committed to the amyloid hypothesis and whose careers have

and funding and reputations are built on examining, exploring, and proving out that way of thinking about the disease. Of course, they feel threatened. They've been antagonistic and critical of some of the findings of the book. But I should add that they haven't found anything in the book that's not true.

and funding and reputations are built on examining, exploring, and proving out that way of thinking about the disease. Of course, they feel threatened. They've been antagonistic and critical of some of the findings of the book. But I should add that they haven't found anything in the book that's not true.