A major evidence review found Alzheimer's drugs probably don't work — and fraud played a role

A sweeping new evidence review found that today's top Alzheimer's drugs "probably result in little to no difference" in reducing dementia severity or anything else that matters to patients.

Journalists found that key papers propping up the dominant treatment approach had been fabricated. One prominent U.S. researcher lost his job when his most-cited paper was retracted, and regulators began scrutinizing more than 20 other papers from the same lab. A separate scandal ran in parallel: an academic was hit with fraud charges, the SEC opened an inquiry into the pharma company tied to that work, and investors were allegedly misled about the science.

Matthew Schrag, the neuroscientist who helped expose the misconduct, said:

"You can cheat to get a paper. 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."Matthew Schrag, neuroscientist

Researchers have been fighting over the "amyloid hypothesis" — the idea that abnormal protein deposits called amyloid plaques cause the disease — since Alois Alzheimer first identified the condition in 1906. Alternative theories linking the disease to viruses, inflammation, and sleep disturbance have received far less funding.

Previously:

• Flu vaccine linked to lower Alzheimer's risk
• Audit shows that pharma companies are still cheating by suppressing trials