A neuroscience image sleuth finds signs of fabrication in scores of Alzheimer’s articles, threatening a reigning theory of the disease;
In August 2021, Matthew Schrag, a neuroscientist and physician at Vanderbilt University, got a call that would plunge him into a maelstrom of possible scientific misconduct. A colleague wanted to connect him with an attorney investigating an experimental drug for Alzheimer’s disease called Simufilam. The drug’s developer, Cassava Sciences, claimed it improved cognition, partly by repairing a protein that can block sticky brain deposits of the protein amyloid beta (Aβ), a hallmark of Alzheimer’s. The attorney’s clients—two prominent neuroscientists who are also short sellers who profit if the company’s stock falls—believed some research related to Simufilam may have been “fraudulent,” according to a petition later filed on their behalf with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Schrag, 37, a softspoken, nonchalantly rumpled junior professor, had already gained some notoriety by publicly criticizing the controversial FDA approval of the anti-Aβ drug Aduhelm. His own research also contradicted some of Cassava’s claims. He feared volunteers in ongoing Simufilam trials faced risks of side effects with no chance of benefit.
So he applied his technical and medical knowledge to interrogate published images about the drug and its underlying science—for which the attorney paid him $18,000. He identified apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles. The attorney reported many of the discoveries in the FDA petition, and Schrag sent all of them to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which had invested tens of millions of dollars in the work. […]
But Schrag’s sleuthing drew him into a different episode of possible misconduct, leading to findings that threaten one of the most cited Alzheimer’s studies of this century and numerous related experiments.
A 6-month investigation by Science provided strong support for Schrag’s suspicions and raised questions about Lesné’s research. A leading independent image analyst and several top Alzheimer’s researchers—including George Perry of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and John Forsayeth of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)—reviewed most of Schrag’s findings at Science’s request. They concurred with his overall conclusions, which cast doubt on hundreds of images, including more than 70 in Lesné’s papers. Some look like “shockingly blatant” examples of image tampering, says Donna Wilcock, an Alzheimer’s expert at the University of Kentucky.
The authors “appeared to have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments,” says Elisabeth Bik, a molecular biologist and well-known forensic image consultant. “The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results, and that data might have been changed to … better fit a hypothesis.”
Early this year, Schrag raised his doubts with NIH and journals including Nature; two, including Nature last week, have published expressions of concern about papers by Lesné. Schrag’s work, done independently of Vanderbilt and its medical center, implies millions of federal dollars may have been misspent on the research—and much more on related efforts. Some Alzheimer’s experts now suspect Lesné’s studies have misdirected Alzheimer’s research for 16 years.
The problem? As a society, we have “moved on” from Religion as our moral core … and elevated scientists and science into that role. We used to believe in biblical inerrancy … now we believe “the science is settled” … or scientific inerrancy. Neither are true. However … scientific inerrancy is FAR MORE dangerous than Biblical inerrancy. Consider the $Trillions spent, and the coordinated societal suicide on the altar of “Global Warming”? Yeah … that’s a bit more at stake than some silly people who believe the planet is 10k years old.
If we don’t change our moral underpinnings (worship of science and money) … then we are doomed. And I suspect the end will come swift. We get lulled into complacency because technology has made our lives rather cushy … but as in all things REAL … when the bill comes due … the retribution will be swift and punishing. As Indiana Jones said (often) … I’ve got a bad feeling about this …
I think we moved from religion to…..anything goes. A moral person wouldn’t have falsified research, knowing as they would that it might cause great suffering.
That folks believe what scientists tell them is dangerous. That they believe scientists are above human corruption is where blind obedience begins band a new religion is formed.
I believe in Biblical inerrancy. Over the years I have become less confident in my interpretation of some parts, but am much more confident in God.
One part I have complete confidence about is that people are capable of great harm to others for personal gain.
For the purposes of making my comparison, I chose the word “inerrancy”. What I really meant was Bible “literalism” . Taken as a whole, and in complete context … I absolutely believe in Biblical inerrancy.
I would agree with you, with the exception of both the New Testament and Esther.
The biggest problem however, and it is a huge one, is in ALL of the translations. One can still find the books of what is now called the old testament in the original Hebrew (which is completely unrelated to what is called Hebrew today) and if one translates the words consistently, rather than changing the meanings when convenient, it paints a somewhat different picture.
Which has to make one wonder how different people living in different lands in different centuries came to almost identical translations…
Almost as though it was the same people purposely mistranslating the books of the Bible in the same uniforms ways, and then pretending to be different people from different lands in different centuries.
The fact that Freemasons like Francis Bacon (aka William Shakespeare) “helped” translate the Bible should give one pause.
“It’s official: Everywhere in science there’s a mysterious lack of ground-breaking papers”
“Across all branches of science, new ideas that reset the paradigms have quietly vanished.”
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/01/its-official-everywhere-in-science-theres-a-mysterious-lack-of-ground-breaking-papers/
Maybe for any drug study to be recognized it has to be done by a group independent from the developer and sworn to have no financial interest in the outcome. These labs should be encouraged to make their independence a matter of honour and pride. No principal or employee would be allowed to have any investment in the drug industry.
Peer review is a joke. The only validity that should matter is independent replication and verification of the same results under the same conditions – multiple times. At this point anyone can wave a “study” claiming anything from a high priest of science and the results are unquestionable(you racist, bigot, blank phobe). Blasphemy.
My aunt was diagnosed with alzheimers 10 years ago. She is little more than a shell now. Her husband has spent a decade praying for a cure and trying to get he into clinical trials because she was early onset(around 55). All based on a lie.
The original study author and any since who have knowingly continued this fraud should spend the rest of their lives in jail. A real scientist on the verge of a cure a decade ago may have been de-funded to pursue this fraud. This sickens me
Your first paragraph nailed it. I spent a summer validating experimental results for third year, engineering lab tasks and soon realized that the answer is never one specific value, but a range of values with upper and lower limits. Very rarely was there a single value from differing devices.
Peer review must be exactly what you say it is: repeatable experimentation with the same exact methods and I would add one caveat. The person that does the review must hate your theory so that he has absolutely no interest in the results being correct. And one more point – the scientific method does not consider or care about morality which is part of the problem and how we got Anthony Fauci.
MN, yes.
Can You Say Lab Rat?
What’s the current estimate? That about half of published scientific research conclusions cannot be duplicated? I know it’s something on that order, yet we trudge on believing; and every third television commercial is for a new pharmaceutical.
roaddog, and here we now have millions of canadians and billions of other lab rats hoping to hell they are not going to be the ones killed by “covid” vaxxes. What a screwed up world.
My father always says he’s glad he lived when he did. More and more, I understand that sentiment.
Not sure the article you’re referencing fairly represents the antics surrounding Cassava.
The following article outlining potential conflicts of interest of those criticizing this possible lifesaving drug sure makes one wonder
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00050-z
One idea overlooked here, is that a successful treatment would be worth billions and save the government billions.
It’s amazing how many diseases and conditions like Alzheimer’s have popped up since the anti-Christian cult of Roman Catholicism introduced poison shots (aka vaccines) onto humanity.
Almost as though the metals (in the case of Alzheimer’s, aluminum) has something to do with it… The same metal our soft drinks and beer come in, and the prime medicinal ingredient in anti-perspirants.
Because it is a desiccant. And the brain is an organ that requires plenty of water…