logo
How greed and profit fueled one failed Alzheimer drug

How greed and profit fueled one failed Alzheimer drug

Yahoo09-02-2025

On May 3, 2021, Matt Price drove his 73-year-old father Stephen from their New Jersey home to a medical strip mall on the Jersey Shore, for his first injection of an experimental drug called simufilam. Cassava Sciences, a Texas biopharma company, had developed simufilam to treat (and possibly cure) Alzheimer's disease, the most common form of dementia that afflicts tens of millions of people worldwide.
When Matt, 27, first heard about simufilam, 'it sounded exciting,' writes Charles Piller in his new book, 'Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer's' (Atria/One Signal Publishers), out now. Rather than simply calming symptoms, simufilam promised 'to slow, stop, or reverse cognitive decline — or for people who have no symptoms, prevent them — by attacking Alzheimer's biochemical cause,' writes Piller.
It was based on a long-debated notion called the 'amyloid hypothesis,' which argued that Alzheimer's is caused by the buildup of the protein amyloid in the brain. 'If true, its removal would lead to a cure,' writes Piller. The discovery was shocking, especially given that it'd been introduced by a small biotech company that previously specialized in opioid painkillers and 'had never taken a drug to market in its fifteen years of existence,' writes Piller. 'Yet it claimed to have discovered a new molecule that stabbed the dark heart of the terrible illness.'
Even in the beginning, Matt Price, a Harvard-trained epidemiologist and global-health specialist, had his doubts. Cassava's theory, which had not yet been validated by independent researchers, 'seemed weird and a bit thin,' Matt told the author.
His concerns would soon be confirmed by a whistleblower, who produced 'convincing evidence that lab studies at the heart of the dominant hypothesis for the cause of Alzheimer's disease might have been based on bogus data,' writes Piller. The amyloid hypothesis wasn't just wrong, but it took valuable resources away from other promising theories on how to treat Alzheimer's. It was just the latest example, writes Piller, 'of the exaggeration, hype, and sheer fakery and fraud that has characterized Alzheimer's research for decades.'
And it's not a problem confined to Alzheimer's research alone. As of this month, at least 55,000 medical and scholarly studies have been retracted, according to the Retraction Watch database from the Center of Scientific Integrity. And it's estimated that there may be as many as several hundred thousand fake studies still circulating and not yet identified. Even when they are exposed, journals are often slow to retract the bogus studies, if it happens at all. It's not just an issue of wasted research dollars. 'It makes people start to distrust the clinical research enterprise,' says Price.
Simufilam began as an experimental drug — code-named PTI-125 — developed by neuroscientists Lindsay Burns and Hoau-Yan Wang. It was designed to target filamin A, which becomes twisted into an abnormal shape and causes inflammation in the brain, promoting the formation of myloid-beta proteins. PTI-125, the researchers suggested, could reverse those terrible effects.
The drug was renamed simufilam in August of 2020, and in preliminary studies, patients started showing improvement after just a month — 'extraordinary for any Alzheimer's trial,' writes Piller. Simufilam began to seem like the holy grail, 'the dream drug that generations of researchers had searched for in vain,' the author writes. By late July 2021, the tiny biopharma company, whose sample size for their simufilam experiments was a minuscule fifty participants, suddenly had a market valuation of $5.4 billion.
The victory was short-lived. On Aug. 18, 2021, just weeks after the company's stock reached record highs, two neuroscientists — Geoffrey Pitt of Weill Cornell Medical College and David Bredt, a former executive at drugmakers Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson — submitted a 'citizen petition' to the FDA, asking them to take a closer look at simufilam. Their main concern was that the drug's development 'contained manipulated scientific images,' writes Piller. 'In short, they asserted, the work looked like it had been doctored.'
To help prove their suspicions, they brought in Matthew Schrag, a neurologist and neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University, who would become 'the most important whistleblower in the history of Alzheimer's,' writes Piller. When they asked for Schrag's help, 'my response was, 'You think I'm stupid enough to do that?' ' Schrag told the author. 'Apparently, I was.'
Using ImageJ and MIPAV, software developed and endorsed by the NIH, Schrag carefully studied the images used in the simufilam study. He had a 'seasoned eye for detecting digital manipulation with common software programs,' writes Piller. Almost immediately, he spotted proof of manipulation. 'Schrag saw micrographs — magnifications of microscopic features of brain tissue — that seemed obviously cloned,' writes Piller. 'Yet they were presented as findings for different experimental conditions.'
Schrag worried that he wasn't just uncovering evidence of research misconduct, but something much larger and more ominous. 'How had those problems gone unnoticed for years or even decades?' Piller writes. '[Schrag] wondered nervously: What other Alzheimer's research should be reconsidered with skeptical eyes?'
Schrag had an uphill battle, mostly because 'disproving someone else's experiment can be a death wish in science,' writes Piller. Or as Schrag explained to the author, 'The field is absolutely calibrated to the newest, most interesting, most cutting-edge discovery. It disincentivizes replication at every turn.'
Piller shared Schrag's findings with over a dozen experts, including several top Alzheimer's researchers. While most were hesitant to go on the record saying anything negative about the original research, some — like Donna Wilcock, an Alzheimer's expert at the University of Kentucky who would later become editor of Alzheimer's & Dementia — admitted that several images showed 'shockingly blatant' signs of tampering.
But others, like Dennis Selkoe, a Harvard professor of neurologic diseases and a celebrated Alzheimer's researcher, 'chastised' the author for his criticism of the 'objective evidence' that reducing amyloid in the human brain produces better cognitive outcomes. 'I'm on the right side of history,' argued Selkoe, who Piller accuses of being part of the 'Amyloid Mafia.'
George Perry, a scientist at the University of Texas at San Antonio and editor of the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, agreed with Piller that many Alzheimer's researchers are too hellbent on being correct. 'The major goal of these people is to win—if it isn't the Nobel Prize, it's God's glory,' Perry told the author. 'To be acknowledged that they really did something great. They don't want the amyloid hypothesis to die, because then they have no legacy.'
Schrag delivered his Cassava dossier to the NIH in 2021, providing 'forensic street cred' to doubts about the research, writes Piller. Two years later, in 2023, a university panel found Hoau-Yan guilty of 'egregious misconduct' because of his work for Cassava. Last September, the company agreed to pay $40 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for misleading investors. And then in November, Cassava acknowledged that simufilam failed to deliver the results they'd expected in a phase 3 clinical trial, and the company would be discontinuing research. Their stock plummeted by more than 80% after the announcement.
Schrag wasn't surprised by the outcome. 'You can cheat to get a paper,' he told the author. 'You can cheat to get a degree. You can cheat to get a grant. You can't cheat to cure a disease. Biology doesn't care.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Eli Lilly and Company (LLY): A Bull Case Theory
Eli Lilly and Company (LLY): A Bull Case Theory

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Eli Lilly and Company (LLY): A Bull Case Theory

We came across a bullish thesis on Eli Lilly and Company (LLY) on Business Model Mastery's Substack. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on LLY. Eli Lilly and Company (LLY)'s share was trading at $765.68 as of 5th June. LLY's trailing and forward P/E were 62.30 and 35.09 respectively according to Yahoo Finance. A picture of a pharma technician preparing an IV injection of a biopharmaceutical product. Eli Lilly is no longer just a pharmaceutical giant—it's becoming a platform company that's reshaping the very structure of global healthcare. At the heart of this transformation is tirzepatide, a dual-action molecule marketed under separate brands for diabetes and obesity. This single drug now accounts for over a quarter of Lilly's total revenue, with the diabetes version generating $11.5 billion (up 330% YoY) and the obesity variant reaching $2.3 billion in its first year—a historic ramp-up. These are not just growth numbers; they're margin-rich results, with 85 %+ gross margins and minimal marketing spend due to entrenched trust among endocrinologists. Crucially, tirzepatide is protected by a fortress of patents through 2036 and beyond, giving Lilly a durable edge in two massive markets. Unlike peers, Lilly owns its injectable manufacturing end-to-end, having invested over $5.5 billion in internal capacity, giving it unmatched agility and control while rivals struggle with supply constraints. Its sales force and deep prescriber relationships, built over decades, have only grown more powerful thanks to a new direct-to-consumer platform that streamlines initiation and adherence. Meanwhile, the company is reinvesting aggressively, with $11 billion (24% of revenue) spent on focused R&D spanning Alzheimer's, oncology, and rare diseases. Its pipeline—anchored in metabolic, neurodegenerative, and immune disorders—builds on existing strengths, accelerating commercialization. Competition exists, but Lilly's molecule consistently outperforms, and its infrastructure outscales. With two-thirds of sales still U.S.-based, global expansion represents the next lever. In sum, Lilly's model—a convergence of science, scale, and system—positions it as more than a pharma company. It's a precision biology platform with extraordinary strategic depth and long-term compounding potential. Previously, we covered a bullish thesis on Eli Lilly (LLY) by Kontra on Substack in May 2025, which aligns with Business Model Mastery's analysis, emphasizing the company's leadership in obesity and diabetes care. Both highlight tirzepatide's explosive growth, margin strength, and Lilly's massive investment in capacity and R&D. Kontra focuses more on near-term financial results, pipeline expansion, and regulatory catalysts, while Business Model Mastery frames Lilly as a precision biology platform with structural advantages—like end-to-end manufacturing and patent longevity—that support durable outperformance. Together, they reinforce Lilly's status as a long-term compounder with deep moats and global runway. Eli Lilly and Company (LLY) is on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 119 hedge fund portfolios held LLY at the end of the first quarter which was 115 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the risk and potential of LLY as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock. Disclosure: None. This article was originally published at Insider Monkey.

Big Data Can Make America Healthier. How to Do It Right
Big Data Can Make America Healthier. How to Do It Right

Yahoo

time44 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Big Data Can Make America Healthier. How to Do It Right

Credit - Ezra Bailey—Getty Images Big data can help make Americans healthier, and the Trump Administration has stated—in its recently released Make America Healthy Again report and elsewhere—that building a national big-data platform is one of its primary goals. As scientists who use large data sets to study health, we're excited about its potential and the willingness of the federal government to invest in it, particularly since big data has been underutilized in the U.S. compared with other developed countries—and since the number of ways it can be used grows nearly daily. It's a huge opportunity. But there are lots of concerns when assembling sensitive health data and combining it with other sensitive data, like credit scores, tax records, employment, educational records, and more. Some of those concerns with the Administration's plans have already surfaced. The Administration's first goal of assembling big data to studying autism has left some worried that if used inappropriately, such data could lead to harm, rather than help, for those with autism. Others worry that big data could be used to perform and justify shoddy research that supports predetermined conclusions without adhering to rigorous scientific methods—a concern reinforced by the discovery that the Make America Healthy Again report cited non-existent sources to support its claims. So how can we reap the benefits of big data while minimizing its risks? Here are some guiding principles: The health care system already possesses health data on millions of Americans. Medical records are now almost always digitized, permitting doctors' notes, medical imaging, laboratory tests, insurance claims, and more to be linked (in theory) across doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes, and any other place people receive care. However, data collected about a patient in one setting often doesn't get connected to data from other settings—making it hard for researchers to get a full picture of what, exactly, is happening to each of us within the larger health care system. Read More: Gun Injuries of All Kinds Go Up During Hunting Season The federal government also has data on us that can be connected to health care data to answer important questions. For example, comprehensive and detailed data on Americans' occupations linked with health, insurance, and other data could help shed more light on relationships between our work and our health—helping to better answer curious questions like why taxi drivers are less likely to die from Alzheimer's disease or why female physicians don't outlive their male colleagues. The first step of making big data more helpful is to simply link the data—which, while possible, is difficult to accomplish without centralized effort. Once linkages have been made, data can be anonymized so that those studying sensitive questions aren't privy to confidential information about specific individuals. In addition to governmental data, many other sources of data can provide insights into our health. For example, smartwatches not only have data on how our hearts are beating (e.g., they can identify abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation), but they can also identify subtle changes in mobility that might be predictive of early neuromuscular diseases like Parkinson's disease. Meanwhile, grocery stores have data on the foods we eat, and with increasing interest in how diet affects our lives, these data could be linked to detailed measures of health. Read More: Could the Shingles Vaccine Help Prevent Dementia? Similarly, social-media platforms possess data that can offer insights into changes in our mental health, and through large-scale analysis of online photos could even identify, in real time, early visible markers of disease. These are moonshots, of course, and whether we want to use data in this way is an open question. But the potential to improve health could be large. Creating a way for scientists to link outside data to existing government and health data—while responsibly maintaining individual anonymity after the linkage—could open many novel research opportunities. Keeping all of these data sources organized, secure, and accessible to scientists is a tall order. Researchers who use big data often dedicate substantial resources to finding the data they need, organizing it, and ensuring its accuracy; the better the database is maintained, the easier it is for researchers to actually perform their analyses. The secure online platform where Medicare and other government health care data are currently accessed has been described by researchers as 'tedious and prone to system errors' and in need of major improvements. Meanwhile, security concerns have led the government to stop letting researchers store the data on their own secure servers, the easiest and most cost-effective way to actually work with the data. Access to Medicare data by researchers has become prohibitively expensive, costing about $30,000 a year or more for a single user to work on one project using the online platform. Read More: Why We Can't Rely on Science Alone to Make Public Health Decisions Proposals to drastically cut medical research funding have been reported, and if passed, these research funding cuts will come at the cost of discoveries to improve health that will never be made. High-quality research of any kind requires investment, whether it's in a biology lab under a microscope or working with data on powerful computers. A new data platform is only as valuable as researchers' ability to access it in a functional and cost-effective way. Any roadmap to designing a national data platform that links together health care and other sensitive data must consider the many valid concerns about collecting data in the U.S., including privacy concerns and how data will be used. The Pew Research Center finds that large majorities of Americans say they are concerned about how the government uses data collected about them (71%), while also admitting that they have little to no understanding of what the government even does with such data (77%). Here are some strategies—in addition to many of the cybersecurity and privacy safeguards already in place—to both protect the data and help earn the public trust: Mistrust and unease with government data collection is readily traceable to historical abuse of Americans' data (as well as recent allegations of improper access), so it's not surprising that many are wary of the Trump Administration's plans. Ensuring data cannot be weaponized by the government against individuals is perhaps the single biggest barrier to creating a useful database, but it can be done. Those currently using federal health care data must already undergo training and comply with very high data-security standards. Misuse of the data—such as even attempting to figure out the identity of an anonymous individual in the data—or failure to protect patient privacy can lead to criminal penalties. A platform of sensitive data without well-delineated restrictions on who can use it and what they can use it for is a recipe for problems. Other ongoing efforts by the Administration to compile data under the vague goal of 'increasing government efficiency' have been met with pushback and lawsuits from organizations concerned about data being used against members of the public. Current use of federal health data also requires researchers to provide the government detailed plans to justify the use of specific data. This allows the government to ensure that no more data than is needed to answer the specific question is provided to researchers. Read More: Why Do Taxi Drivers Have a Lower Risk of Alzheimer's? Researchers must also obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to accessing and analyzing data, a second checkpoint. These boards, which exist in light of egregious failures of medical research ethics in the 20th century, help ensure that analyses are designed to minimize risk to patients—even if it is only their data, and not their bodies, at risk. Transparency into who is using this sensitive data and what exactly they are doing with it can engender trust between researchers and the American public. Just like researchers already do for clinical trials, those accessing the data platform should specify their plans in advance, and those plans should be easily and publicly available. Transparency around which data were accessed and what computer code was used to analyze it not only promotes trust, but such data- and code-sharing practices among researchers make it easier to appraise the quality of the work, identify mistakes, and root out misconduct. We can only assume that Americans' unease with governmental data use stems from knowledge that, as with all powerful tools, linked data has the potential to be used in potentially harmful ways. But when in the hands of qualified scientists using rigorous scientific methods and privacy safeguards, a robust real-world data platform like this could lead to new discoveries about how all of us can lead healthier lives. Contact us at letters@

Big Data Can Make America Healthier. Here's How to Do It Right
Big Data Can Make America Healthier. Here's How to Do It Right

Time​ Magazine

timean hour ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Big Data Can Make America Healthier. Here's How to Do It Right

Big data can help make Americans healthier, and the Trump Administration has stated—in its recently released Make America Healthy Again report and elsewhere—that building a national big-data platform is one of its primary goals. As scientists who use large data sets to study health, we're excited about its potential and the willingness of the federal government to invest in it, particularly since big data has been underutilized in the U.S. compared with other developed countries—and since the number of ways it can be used grows nearly daily. It's a huge opportunity. But there are lots of concerns when assembling sensitive health data and combining it with other sensitive data, like credit scores, tax records, employment, educational records, and more. Some of those concerns with the Administration's plans have already surfaced. The Administration's first goal of assembling big data to studying autism has left some worried that if used inappropriately, such data could lead to harm, rather than help, for those with autism. Others worry that big data could be used to perform and justify shoddy research that supports predetermined conclusions without adhering to rigorous scientific methods—a concern reinforced by the discovery that the Make America Healthy Again report cited non-existent sources to support its claims. So how can we reap the benefits of big data while minimizing its risks? Here are some guiding principles: 1. Link the highly siloed health care and government data we already have The health care system already possesses health data on millions of Americans. Medical records are now almost always digitized, permitting doctors' notes, medical imaging, laboratory tests, insurance claims, and more to be linked (in theory) across doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes, and any other place people receive care. However, data collected about a patient in one setting often doesn't get connected to data from other settings—making it hard for researchers to get a full picture of what, exactly, is happening to each of us within the larger health care system. The federal government also has data on us that can be connected to health care data to answer important questions. For example, comprehensive and detailed data on Americans' occupations linked with health, insurance, and other data could help shed more light on relationships between our work and our health—helping to better answer curious questions like why taxi drivers are less likely to die from Alzheimer's disease or why female physicians don't outlive their male colleagues. The first step of making big data more helpful is to simply link the data—which, while possible, is difficult to accomplish without centralized effort. Once linkages have been made, data can be anonymized so that those studying sensitive questions aren't privy to confidential information about specific individuals. 2. Create capacity for researchers to securely link to other valuable data In addition to governmental data, many other sources of data can provide insights into our health. For example, smartwatches not only have data on how our hearts are beating (e.g., they can identify abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation), but they can also identify subtle changes in mobility that might be predictive of early neuromuscular diseases like Parkinson's disease. Meanwhile, grocery stores have data on the foods we eat, and with increasing interest in how diet affects our lives, these data could be linked to detailed measures of health. Similarly, social-media platforms possess data that can offer insights into changes in our mental health, and through large-scale analysis of online photos could even identify, in real time, early visible markers of disease. These are moonshots, of course, and whether we want to use data in this way is an open question. But the potential to improve health could be large. Creating a way for scientists to link outside data to existing government and health data—while responsibly maintaining individual anonymity after the linkage—could open many novel research opportunities. 3. Invest in data-research infrastructure Keeping all of these data sources organized, secure, and accessible to scientists is a tall order. Researchers who use big data often dedicate substantial resources to finding the data they need, organizing it, and ensuring its accuracy; the better the database is maintained, the easier it is for researchers to actually perform their analyses. The secure online platform where Medicare and other government health care data are currently accessed has been described by researchers as 'tedious and prone to system errors' and in need of major improvements. Meanwhile, security concerns have led the government to stop letting researchers store the data on their own secure servers, the easiest and most cost-effective way to actually work with the data. Access to Medicare data by researchers has become prohibitively expensive, costing about $30,000 a year or more for a single user to work on one project using the online platform. Proposals to drastically cut medical research funding have been reported, and if passed, these research funding cuts will come at the cost of discoveries to improve health that will never be made. High-quality research of any kind requires investment, whether it's in a biology lab under a microscope or working with data on powerful computers. A new data platform is only as valuable as researchers' ability to access it in a functional and cost-effective way. Any roadmap to designing a national data platform that links together health care and other sensitive data must consider the many valid concerns about collecting data in the U.S., including privacy concerns and how data will be used. The Pew Research Center finds that large majorities of Americans say they are concerned about how the government uses data collected about them (71%), while also admitting that they have little to no understanding of what the government even does with such data (77%). Here are some strategies—in addition to many of the cybersecurity and privacy safeguards already in place—to both protect the data and help earn the public trust: 1. Strictly limit data access to vetted researchers Mistrust and unease with government data collection is readily traceable to historical abuse of Americans' data (as well as recent allegations of improper access), so it's not surprising that many are wary of the Trump Administration's plans. Ensuring data cannot be weaponized by the government against individuals is perhaps the single biggest barrier to creating a useful database, but it can be done. Those currently using federal health care data must already undergo training and comply with very high data-security standards. Misuse of the data—such as even attempting to figure out the identity of an anonymous individual in the data—or failure to protect patient privacy can lead to criminal penalties. A platform of sensitive data without well-delineated restrictions on who can use it and what they can use it for is a recipe for problems. Other ongoing efforts by the Administration to compile data under the vague goal of 'increasing government efficiency' have been met with pushback and lawsuits from organizations concerned about data being used against members of the public. 2. Require analytical plans and ethics-board approval up front Current use of federal health data also requires researchers to provide the government detailed plans to justify the use of specific data. This allows the government to ensure that no more data than is needed to answer the specific question is provided to researchers. Researchers must also obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to accessing and analyzing data, a second checkpoint. These boards, which exist in light of egregious failures of medical research ethics in the 20 th century, help ensure that analyses are designed to minimize risk to patients—even if it is only their data, and not their bodies, at risk. 3. Emphasize true transparency Transparency into who is using this sensitive data and what exactly they are doing with it can engender trust between researchers and the American public. Just like researchers already do for clinical trials, those accessing the data platform should specify their plans in advance, and those plans should be easily and publicly available. Transparency around which data were accessed and what computer code was used to analyze it not only promotes trust, but such data- and code-sharing practices among researchers make it easier to appraise the quality of the work, identify mistakes, and root out misconduct. We can only assume that Americans' unease with governmental data use stems from knowledge that, as with all powerful tools, linked data has the potential to be used in potentially harmful ways. But when in the hands of qualified scientists using rigorous scientific methods and privacy safeguards, a robust real-world data platform like this could lead to new discoveries about how all of us can lead healthier lives.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store