It turns out that the medical orthodoxy that amyloid plaques cause Alzheimer's disease are the product of fraud.
When I say that there is a problem with corruption in the sciences, and that this contributes to science denialism by much of the population, this is what I mean:
In short, Schrag has uncovered "anomalies" in the data at the heart of AD research that are the equivalent of discovering proof that mosquitoes had no role in spreading yellow fever. It also has put him in the middle of a controversy that has raged within the AD research community for decades, once thought to have been settled but which now seems primed to explode all over again.
………
If Schrag is right—and his research seems sound and his approach judicious—then we could be looking at one of the biggest and most important cases of bad science of all time. As I said, there always has been a raging argument over the role of beta-amyloid in AD. Is the protein the cause of the disease's devastating effects, or is it simply a marker of the disease's passage through the brain? (One opponent of the amyloid hypothesis explained his position by saying that the amyloid deposits were "like gravestones. They mark where the body is, but they're not what killed the person.") If the original basis for the amyloid hypothesis turns out to have been flawed, that would lead to the conclusion that billions of dollars have been wasted hunting snipes down blind alleys.
Not wasted, stolen. If one looks at Aduhelm, cost $56,000.00 a year while providing no measurable improvement in cognitive function, someone is benefiting from this, it's just not patients or the public.
If you have to to wonder cui bono whenever you see a piece of potentially ground breaking research, you have a corruption problem in your field of study.
0 comments :
Post a Comment