Why has there been so little progress on Alzheimer's disease?
49 points by chiefalchemist 2 hours ago | 13 comments

robwwilliams 47 minutes ago
The major problem has been lock-in of the Abeta 42 peptide fragment as the cause. This monomaniacal focus was rewarded by grant awards to team players.

Karl Herrup has a terrific book on the topic How Not to Study a Disease — The Story of Alzheimer’s from MIT Press (2021, ISBN 9780262045902). He did not win many friends but I think he is right.

The consensus now is that many factors contribute to the heterogeneous diseases we now call Alzheimer’s.

reply
saghm 37 minutes ago
The article (or I guess more accurately "podcast transcription") seems to be saying that this lock-in essentially happened due to fraud, since some of the data was intentionally doctored to get the intended result. One of the guests seems to be an author of a different book about this (with the other guest being the scientist who apparently uncovered this). I can't personally attest to the accuracy of anything they said, but they're at least alleging that it was a lot less benign than it sounds like you're describing.
reply
robwwilliams 14 minutes ago
The focus is definitely on scientific fraud, but what makes the fraud so easy in this case is singing and selling the same song that the big teams are singing and selling. You can fly under the radar AND get funded, and if you are “lucky” become an ultra big shot like Masliah at NIA.
reply
jmward01 11 minutes ago
'Science progresses one funeral at a time...' It is often the case that an entire field is led by a few influential people and until they leave others can't get the air they need to make real progress.
reply
panabee 5 minutes ago
TLDR: gatekeepers stifled exploration and innovation.

When a topic only has a limited number of experts, those experts become gatekeepers.

Those gatekeepers directly or indirectly control research funding.

Gatekeepers necessarily harbor biases, some right and some wrong, about how the field should progress.

For Alzheimer's, some gatekeepers were conflicted and potentially directed the field in the wrong direction. Only time will reveal AB42's true role.

It's easy to find fault in Alzheimer's.

It's harder to see the general solution to the gatekeeper problem, i.e., how to allocate resources in areas with limited experts.

reply
tim-tday 5 minutes ago
The science was delayed a decade due to fraud.
reply
onesandofgrain 3 minutes ago
Can u tell me what this is about?
reply
PaulKeeble 31 minutes ago
Its done substantially better than more common diseases like ME/CFS which very few have even heard of let alone know the symptoms of and receives almost no funding at all. Alzheimer's received a further $100 million of NIH funding earlier this year (https://www.alz.org/news/2026/100-million-dollar-alzheimers-...). That is 6 times the total funding for ME/CFS federally which is currently just 15 million and planned to decline.

The research went awry in Alziemer's due to fraud but its being funded at a reasonable level, a level many with Long Covid or ME/CFS or Fibromylgia would be very happy to see but doubt will ever happen.

reply
avazhi 16 minutes ago
No clue why you think chronic fatique syndrome and dementia ought to be treated as equally debilitating or serious by the medical community, but I'm sure you're the only person on this earth who holds that opinion.

Naturally, the far more terrifying and inexorable disease that is incurable and robs people of their entire personality and will affect most of us to some extent (dementia, if not Alzheimer's specifically) by the end of our lives gets more funding and attention, as it should. The way Alzheimer's has been researched and funded is diabolical, though, but you might pick any other of 200 serious progressive neurological disorders that are underfunded and underrepresented over... CFS. CFS isn't even fully accepted as a syndrome at this point - long COVID is probably more accepted as a real thing by practitioners at this point than CFS.

reply
klipt 4 minutes ago
> long COVID is probably more accepted as a real thing by practitioners at this point than CFS

Isn't long covid just CFS that can be attributed to Covid?

If you accept that multiple viruses can cause "long <virus >" syndromes, of which long covid is just one example, it's plausible that CFS is really a cluster of syndromes, one category of which is these post viral syndromes. We just can't pinpoint the virus behind it every time because most viruses haven't been studied as much as Covid has.

reply
sublinear 7 minutes ago
I'm not saying I'm the best informed on this topic, but I thought the root cause has been known for a long time now as degraded endocrine and cardiovascular function.

That's also why Alzheimer's can take so long to develop. It's just one aspect that we've chosen to focus on because it's more clearly noticeable, but it cannot easily be treated in isolation from everything else. If it was, it would regress quickly without fixing the root causes.

reply
readthenotes1 40 minutes ago
"One possibility: a leading hypothesis pursued by researchers (and funders) was built on science that now appears to be fraudulent."

Possibly the most likely possibility?

reply
dirtbagskier 19 minutes ago
[dead]
reply
omeysalvi 11 minutes ago
It is a "There is No Antimemetics Division" kind of scenario. They discover the cure and then keep forgetting it.
reply