Freakonomics Radio 671. Why Has There Been So Little Progress on Alzheimer’s Disease?
286 snips
Apr 17, 2026 
Charles Piller, a Science investigative journalist, and Matthew Schrag, a Vanderbilt neurologist, trace how Alzheimer’s research may have been steered by suspect science. They dig into whistleblowing, image manipulation, failed drug bets, and the outsized influence of the amyloid theory. They also explore prevention, inequality, pollution, and new ideas about how the brain clears waste.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
How A Drug Dossier Started With Altered Images
- Schrag was hired by whistleblowers probing Cassava Sciences and found Simufilam papers with images that appeared retouched, duplicated, or intensity-adjusted.
- Because blot darkness becomes data, altering a splotch can change the claimed result, not just the illustration.
Why One Suspicious Paper Led To A Broader Probe
- Schrag says suspected misconduct around Cassava led him to a broader pattern that "cheaters cheat" across multiple papers and collaborators.
- He expanded from one company’s drug claims to dossiers sent to NIH about a scientist’s wider body of work.
The 2006 Nature Paper That Reframed Alzheimer’s
- A 2006 Nature paper claimed a small amyloid oligomer caused memory loss and revived confidence in the amyloid hypothesis after a vaccine trial failed.
- Schrag and Charles Piller say manipulated Western blots made the data appear to support that influential claim.
