Potentially falsified Amyloid B research

Insights and discussion from the cutting edge with reference to journal articles and other research papers.
Post Reply
mb00
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:38 pm

Potentially falsified Amyloid B research

Post by mb00 »

Hi all I’ve been a longtime lurker and haven’t posted in a couple of years but just saw the article below in Science which seems to cast a lot of doubt on the Ameloid B theory. I’ll let others more well versed in the science weigh in.

https://www.science.org/content/article ... rs-disease
User avatar
TheresaB
Mod
Mod
Posts: 1607
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Front Range, CO

Re: Potentially falsified Amyloid B research

Post by TheresaB »

mb00 wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:24 am Hi all I’ve been a longtime lurker and haven’t posted in a couple of years but just saw the article below in Science which seems to cast a lot of doubt on the Ameloid B theory. I’ll let others more well versed in the science weigh in.

https://www.science.org/content/article ... rs-disease
Holy cow! Suspect/tampered images in dozens of papers involving Alzheimer’s disease including one of the most cited Alzheimer’s studies of this century! And some of the research related to the Alzheimer's drug Simufilam may have been fraudulent!

I have to say it again, Holy Cow!

Thank you for sharing this interesting article and thank goodness for the investigation work reported in this article, but SO disheartening. And this is on the heels of Julie's letter to Dr Hellmuth with its general theme of healthcare being all about profiteering and ego protection. viewtopic.php?t=8160 How much research and wasted money has gone down the rabbit hole over the last 16 years since that pivotal paper that was published in 2006?

I know many have questioned the amyloid hypothesis including Dr Bredesen. He's said that the amyloid is basically a bystander, a response to metabolic insults.
-Theresa
ApoE 4/4
mike
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 849
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:55 pm
Location: CA - Sonoma County

Re: Potentially falsified Amyloid B research

Post by mike »

Just lovely
Sonoma Mike
4/4
Greyhound
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:31 pm
Location: north america

Re: Potentially falsified Amyloid B research

Post by Greyhound »

I saw it yesterday on another site. The FDA was requested to investigate. The an attorney got involved with some short sellers so that brought in more troubles. I did not post it because it looked really bad.
Why are we surprised. I also read this report which is off topic slightly but the same theme.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/07 ... icine.html
NF52
Support Team
Support Team
Posts: 2772
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:41 am
Location: Eastern U.S.

Re: Potentially falsified Amyloid B research

Post by NF52 »

mb00 wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:24 am Hi all I’ve been a longtime lurker and haven’t posted in a couple of years but just saw the article below in Science which seems to cast a lot of doubt on the Ameloid B theory. I’ll let others more well versed in the science weigh in.

https://www.science.org/content/article ... rs-disease
TheresaB wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:13 am
Holy cow! Suspect/tampered images in dozens of papers involving Alzheimer’s disease including one of the most cited Alzheimer’s studies of this century! ... How much research and wasted money has gone down the rabbit hole over the last 16 years since that pivotal paper that was published in 2006? ..
The editors of Nature, a highly respected journal that published the most-cited 2006 article, added this prominent text box to the abstract of the article. (The full article is behind a paywall.]
14 July 2022 Editor’s Note: The editors of Nature have been alerted to concerns regarding some of the figures in this paper. Nature is investigating these concerns, and a further editorial response will follow as soon as possible. In the meantime, readers are advised to use caution when using results reported therein.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533

Knowing that scientific articles have a standard format of "Introduction" in which many papers going back decades are listed in footnotes, I was curious how he was cited, and whether his likely falsification of data meant all later research on oligomers was false. That 2006 article has over 2500 citations. If all of those were saying in effect, "Dr. Lesne says A, so A is proven" that would be dreadful. But often it is just laying the basic foundation of "we have this thing we call Alzheimer's pathology" with a reference. Here's some actual 2022 citations of Dr Lesne's article; you'll note that Dr. Lesne himself is NEVER cited as a leading thinker in the field. The citation of the 2006 article is the number in the brackets.

June 29, 2022: Curcumin improves D-galactose and normal-aging associated memory impairment in mice: In vivo and in silico-based studies
Brain aging and accompanied cognitive dysfunction are typical features of neurodegenerative diseases [6].
July 1, 2022 Investigation of Cyclo-Z Therapeutic Effect on Insulin Pathway in Alzheimer's Rat Model: Biochemical and Electrophysiological Parameters
Oligomeric types of Aβ peptide are thought to trigger synaptic dysfunction, neurodegeneration and ultimately dementia [2–5] [Note: reference 5 is Lesne's 2006 article]. The cellular pathology...has not been fully explained yet...In recent studies, it has been emphasized that brain insulin resistance is an early feature of AD and develops before the onset of AD symptoms.
And just to illustrate how common throwing everything into the references is, this article from a few weeks ago,
Beneficial Effects of Citrus Flavonoids Against Aβ Pathology in Alzheimer’s Disease has 112 references, dating from 1984 to 2019..

I support whistleblowers, and Dr. Lesne's work may be struck down in its entirety. Yet I hope we refrain from assuming that his one article has poisoned more than 15 years of research by those in the field.

This isn't the most recent article about oligomer research, but this academic study of green tea extracts as a possible way to target oligomers suggests that not all research is "wasted", any more than the 2022 Webb telescope views of galaxies beyond belief are as flawed as the 2006 Columbia space shuttle disaster--the same year as Lesne's article .

Scientists map elusive toxic proteins linked to Alzheimer's-providing new molecular clues for prevention
Researchers liken amyloid beta oligomers to a neurotoxic ‘bomb’, causing the irreversible death of neurons. “To defuse the bomb, we need to know with a high degree of precision which wires to cut and which to avoid,” explains Giuseppe Melacini... a professor.. at McMaster University. Melacini ...is working with a team of physicists, chemists, biologists and dementia specialists at McMaster, [in] an investigation which requires highly specialized equipment, including wide-angle X-ray diffraction and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to conduct the analysis at the atomic level. For the study, the team used a library of natural products extracted from green tea that are believed to interfere with the formation of the toxic protein oligomers to varying degrees. Using this toolkit they were able to build oligomers with different toxicities, allowing the team to gain unprecedented insights into how they interact with neurons and cause cell death. They hope this research can help them determine how to defuse the neurotoxic bomb.
Finally, here's the expectation for references: They are not only works with which you agree:
Ten simple rules for responsible referencing
We researchers aim to read and write publications containing high-quality prose, exceptional data, arguments, and conclusions, embedded firmly in existing literature while making abundantly clear what we are adding to it. Through the inclusion of references, we demonstrate the foundation upon which our studies rest as well as how they are different from previous work. That difference can include literature we dispute or disprove...
[Emphasis added].
4/4 and still an optimist!
CAngelS
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:32 pm

Re: Potentially falsified Amyloid B research

Post by CAngelS »

I was fine — annoyed that it took mainstream media this long to pay attention to the failure of the amyloid plaque model — but really just glad that someone was paying attention at all — and then I read this article aloud to my husband and surprised myself by getting choked up.

My mother died of Alzheimer’s. And I’ve resigned myself to sounding like a crazy person when I encourage people to study the research to help them make more informed choices around this topic. It’s always — ALWAYS — an uphill battle. And they FAKED images? :evil:
Science has concluded its own six-month review, during which it consulted with image experts. What they found seems to confirm Schrag’s suspicions.

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.

After reviewing the images, molecular biologist Elisabeth Bik said of the paper, “The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results, and that data might have been changed to … better fit a hypothesis.”

Should this fraud turn out to be as extensive as it appears at first glance, the implications go well beyond just misdirecting tens of billions in funding and millions of hours of research over the last two decades.
"If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else?" (Matthew 5:47)
User avatar
thumperama
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:54 am

Re: Potentially falsified Amyloid B research

Post by thumperama »

I exchanged messages with Charles Pillar ( https://twitter.com/cpiller), the investigative reporter who authored the Science Magazine article, on Twitter. He said he will continue to track the case, and will publish more as developments arise. He said he believes resolution will take a lot of time. The next steps are for the University of Minnesota and the journals to issue statements and their investigation plans.

I recommend all concerned individuals let these institutions know our interest in a quick resolution. We should demand a clear timeline and progress transparency. They owe it to the public to regain trust in the scientific process. They owe to our community to undo any harm and redirect focus and investment to alternatives, if the ABeta hypotheses, is wrong, and resulting from incorrect or fraudulent data presented in the research publications authored by their scientists or published in their journals.

I urge everyone to keep the pressure on. The results of the effort of just a handful of people revealed the problems. With a few more of us banging on the table, maybe we can make progress on faster timeline. Months matter.
Post Reply