MennoNet.com

It appears that years of Alzheimer’s research was based on fabricated research. The article is an interesting story of how it was uncovered, though I didn’t understand much of the technical details. The person who uncovered it has Mennonite roots.

There’s are billions of dollars in wasted research and ineffective drugs at stake of course, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that perhaps a whole generation of people will suffer from Alzheimer’s who wouldn’t have otherwise. Assuming this is what it looks like it is, some people ought to see significant jail time, though I doubt that’s likely (maybe I’m being too cynical).

Pelerin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 1:47 pm It appears that years of Alzheimer’s research was based on fabricated research. The article is an interesting story of how it was uncovered, though I didn’t understand much of the technical details. The person who uncovered it has Mennonite roots.

There’s are billions of dollars in wasted research and ineffective drugs at stake of course, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that perhaps a whole generation of people will suffer from Alzheimer’s who wouldn’t have otherwise. Assuming this is what it looks like it is, some people ought to see significant jail time, though I doubt that’s likely (maybe I’m being too cynical).

Some of the people I used to do beta amyloid scans for have wondered for awhile if Tau protein tangles are really to blame. If this pans out, it is a major scandal,

Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:45 pm

Pelerin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 24, 2022 1:47 pm It appears that years of Alzheimer’s research was based on fabricated research. The article is an interesting story of how it was uncovered, though I didn’t understand much of the technical details. The person who uncovered it has Mennonite roots.

There’s are billions of dollars in wasted research and ineffective drugs at stake of course, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that perhaps a whole generation of people will suffer from Alzheimer’s who wouldn’t have otherwise. Assuming this is what it looks like it is, some people ought to see significant jail time, though I doubt that’s likely (maybe I’m being too cynical).

Some of the people I used to do beta amyloid scans for have wondered for awhile if Tau protein tangles are really to blame. If this pans out, it is a major scandal,

It’s discouraging.
i’ve been in hope that Alz research would do for Alz what heart research did for heart disease, which is still too common, but heavens, heart attacks are not the certain death sentences they once were. i’ve known a number of people who well-survived even massive heart attacks to go on living full lives for decades, thanks to advances in surgeries, also, PREVENTIONS.

similar, even with different cancers.

there have been numbers of astonishing medical advances in my lifetime.
cataract surgery is one. as a small child i witnessed my mother care for her post-op mother, it was a grueling experience.
then my mother went thru it. much improved.
i went thru it in recent years, a cake walk, by comparison.

just the advent of sterile disposable dressings, etc., makes a day+night difference in patient care.
that one thing that is so easy to take for granted.

If true, this is so incredibly sad. I have a couple elder family members who are affected by this disease, as I think many of us do. It's personal.

Trust the science! After all, this drug was FDA approved.

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:22 am Trust the science! After all, this drug was FDA approved.

The only anti-amyloid drug that was ever approved was Aaducanumab, and it's approval was highly controversial. The expert panel was quite divided, and ordinarily that would kill it. However, the FDA commissioner overruled the usual caution in such cases, and approved it. Some have suggested that patient advocacy groups, many of which are funded by big Pharma.

Actually, people have been wondering about this. In my training to do Beta Amyloid PET scans, it was mentioned that they were 85% specific for AD. I asked what about the remaining 15%....no answer. People with Amyloid deposits, but no symptoms? Clearly a puzzle that no one has answered.

If you think I trust pharmaceutical reps, you are mistaken. I could tell you stories.

J.M.

Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 7:49 pm

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:22 am Trust the science! After all, this drug was FDA approved.

The only anti-amyloid drug that was ever approved was Aaducanumab, and it's approval was highly controversial. The expert panel was quite divided, and ordinarily that would kill it. However, the FDA commissioner overruled the usual caution in such cases, and approved it. Some have suggested that patient advocacy groups, many of which are funded by big Pharma.

Actually, people have been wondering about this. In my training to do Beta Amyloid PET scans, it was mentioned that they were 85% specific for AD. I asked what about the remaining 15%....no answer. People with Amyloid deposits, but no symptoms? Clearly a puzzle that no one has answered.

If you think I trust pharmaceutical reps, you are mistaken. I could tell you stories.

J.M.

Oh I would definitely trust pharmaceutical reps! I would trust them to say or do whatever they think they could get away with that would make them the most money regardless of the consequences to other people.

ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:04 pm

Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 7:49 pm

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:22 am Trust the science! After all, this drug was FDA approved.

The only anti-amyloid drug that was ever approved was Aaducanumab, and it's approval was highly controversial. The expert panel was quite divided, and ordinarily that would kill it. However, the FDA commissioner overruled the usual caution in such cases, and approved it. Some have suggested that patient advocacy groups, many of which are funded by big Pharma.

Actually, people have been wondering about this. In my training to do Beta Amyloid PET scans, it was mentioned that they were 85% specific for AD. I asked what about the remaining 15%....no answer. People with Amyloid deposits, but no symptoms? Clearly a puzzle that no one has answered.

If you think I trust pharmaceutical reps, you are mistaken. I could tell you stories.

J.M.

Oh I would definitely trust pharmaceutical reps! I would trust them to say or do whatever they think they could get away with that would make them the most money regardless of the consequences to other people.

My medical director and I were INTENTIONALLY misled by one of them, who was promoting an off-label use, which is clearly against regulations. Only by the grace of God, nothing bad happened.

J.M.

Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:07 pm

ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:04 pm

Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 7:49 pm

The only anti-amyloid drug that was ever approved was Aaducanumab, and it's approval was highly controversial. The expert panel was quite divided, and ordinarily that would kill it. However, the FDA commissioner overruled the usual caution in such cases, and approved it. Some have suggested that patient advocacy groups, many of which are funded by big Pharma.

Actually, people have been wondering about this. In my training to do Beta Amyloid PET scans, it was mentioned that they were 85% specific for AD. I asked what about the remaining 15%....no answer. People with Amyloid deposits, but no symptoms? Clearly a puzzle that no one has answered.

If you think I trust pharmaceutical reps, you are mistaken. I could tell you stories.

J.M.

Oh I would definitely trust pharmaceutical reps! I would trust them to say or do whatever they think they could get away with that would make them the most money regardless of the consequences to other people.

My medical director and I were INTENTIONALLY misled by one of them, who was promoting an off-label use, which is clearly against regulations. Only by the grace of God, nothing bad happened.

J.M.

I believe that.

ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:10 pm

Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:07 pm

ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:04 pm
Oh I would definitely trust pharmaceutical reps! I would trust them to say or do whatever they think they could get away with that would make them the most money regardless of the consequences to other people.

My medical director and I were INTENTIONALLY misled by one of them, who was promoting an off-label use, which is clearly against regulations. Only by the grace of God, nothing bad happened.

J.M.

I believe that.

He walked right up to the line. He never actually SAID it works for the off-label indication, but the message was clear. Pile of journal articles promoting this use. Nothing bad happened on my watch.

I never trusted any of them again. Never.