{"id":189,"date":"2026-04-21T12:32:11","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T12:32:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/redzine.co.uk\/index.php\/2026\/04\/21\/alzheimers-drugs-offer-little-benefit-major-review-finds-and-the-reasons-go-deeper-than-the-science\/"},"modified":"2026-04-21T12:32:11","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T12:32:11","slug":"alzheimers-drugs-offer-little-benefit-major-review-finds-and-the-reasons-go-deeper-than-the-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/redzine.co.uk\/index.php\/2026\/04\/21\/alzheimers-drugs-offer-little-benefit-major-review-finds-and-the-reasons-go-deeper-than-the-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Alzheimer\u2019s drugs offer little benefit, major review finds \u2013 and the reasons go deeper than the science"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/span> PeopleImages\/Shutterstock.com<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

How is it possible to spend tens of billions of dollars<\/a> developing drugs to treat a serious disease that affects millions of people, and yet end up with something that does not work? This is a mystery that has bedevilled Alzheimer\u2019s research for years.<\/p>\n

A new review of the evidence has concluded that the leading class of Alzheimer\u2019s<\/a> drugs \u201cprobably result in little to no difference\u201d<\/a> in a range of measures, including reducing dementia severity. This finding was quickly used to further justify the NHS\u2019s decision<\/a> two years ago not to fund these drugs.<\/p>\n

These findings are disappointing, not just for researchers and drug companies, but also for the tens of millions of people and their families suffering from the effects of a devastating disease.<\/p>\n

Medical research is often reported through success stories, but Alzheimer\u2019s disease has remained stubbornly resistant to the development of life-changing breakthroughs. This has not gone unnoticed. A couple of years ago, investigative journalists uncovered significant fraud<\/a> in important studies underpinning some of the science behind the leading Alzheimer\u2019s drugs. <\/p>\n

While this fraud is not solely responsible<\/a> for the lack of progress in Alzheimer\u2019s research, it does reveal how vested interests can distort science and how commercial interests can sometimes override indications that a specific approach may not actually be working. It also reveals how social, political and economic factors can distort and hold back entire fields of research.<\/p>\n

A century of science and still no answers<\/h2>\n

The German psychiatrist Alois Alzheimer first identified the disease that bears his name in 1906. Over the subsequent years, it was found to be characterised by abnormal protein deposits in the brain called amyloid \u201cplaques\u201d and similarly misfolded protein tau tangles. <\/p>\n

As these misfolded proteins are not found in healthy brains, it was assumed that they were the cause of the disease. But subsequent studies showed that the amounts of these protein deposits did not correlate well with disease severity<\/a>, unlike similar diseases, where misfolded protein deposits occurring in other parts of the body led directly to organ failure.<\/p>\n

This complex relationship between the pathological changes in the brains of people with Alzheimer\u2019s and the psychological progression of the disease has split the research field for many years. <\/p>\n

At one point, those proposing that amyloid deposits (or at least the molecular processes leading to them) were the main cause of the disease were even referred to<\/a> as \u201cBaptists\u201d, while those holding tau as responsible were called the \u201cTauists\u201d. Although these have been the main two theories as to the cause of the disease, there have been numerous others<\/a>, such as linking the disease to the abnormal behaviour of neurotransmitters, inflammation, presence of pollutants, age-related changes, DNA damage, viruses<\/a> and even sleep disturbance.<\/p>\n

In situations like this, when there are many competing theories, researchers who start working on one theory can start to become entrenched. This is an unfortunate byproduct of competitive funding models, where research money tends to flow to the researchers who are most successful at arguing that their approach is the most promising and therefore worthy of receiving more research money. This is an interesting example of how science is not always an entirely objective endeavour.<\/p>\n

\n \"An
\n Amyloid plaques (in orange) are a hallmark of Alzheimer\u2019s. But are they the cause?<\/span>
\n Kateryna Kon\/Shutterstock.com<\/a><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This pressure on researchers to publish papers and attract funding is probably a contributing factor to the significant fraud linked specifically to some working on the amyloid hypothesis for Alzheimer\u2019s. In one case, a researcher in the US was forced to resign<\/a> from his university following the retraction of a much-cited paper<\/a>, and the discovery that over 20 other papers may have similarly questionable data. <\/p>\n

In a separate case, an academic faced fraud charges<\/a>, while a pharmaceutical company they worked with came under investigation for allegedly misleading investors<\/a>. Both of these cases were in connection with a different approach to treating Alzheimer\u2019s, namely, targeting a protein called filamin A. <\/p>\n

Indeed, controversies within Alzheimer\u2019s research have become so frequent that they have inspired an entire book<\/a> dedicated to examining the issue.<\/p>\n

Matthew Schrag<\/a>, a neuroscientist who played a key role in exposing elements of fraud in Alzheimer\u2019s research, said: \u201cYou can cheat to get a paper. You can cheat to get a degree. You can cheat to get a grant. You can\u2019t cheat to cure a disease. Biology doesn\u2019t care.\u201d<\/p>\n

While scientific breakthroughs undoubtedly underpin much of modern life, the example of Alzheimer\u2019s research serves as a reminder that the path from defining a problem to discovering a solution is rarely straightforward.<\/p>\n

It would be nice to think that the main incentive for most researchers might be solving a problem or curing a disease, but the actual situation is far more complex. Research relies on funding, and researchers get jobs based on reputation, often in the form of publications. Because of this, the wrong behaviour can become incentivised.<\/p>\n

The complexity of Alzheimer\u2019s disease and the lack of obvious answers or cures make this field particularly susceptible to distortion by the social factors that can influence science. <\/p>\n

As researchers and pharmaceutical companies compete for funding and investment, the science starts to get lost behind the games that are played. The end result is not only financial loss and lack of progress, but in the case of this devastating disease, millions of people also end up suffering through a lack of effective treatments.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

Prior to moving into Bioethics Simon Kolstoe spent 17 years working on protein folding diseases (including Alzheimer’s) on grants funded by the MRC, BBSRC, Wellcome Trust and with a number of pharmaceutical companies. He receives no income from his former research in this area.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PeopleImages\/Shutterstock.com How is it possible to spend tens of billions of dollars developing drugs to treat a serious disease that affects millions of people, and yet end up with something that does not work? This is a mystery that has bedevilled Alzheimer\u2019s research for years. A new review of the evidence has concluded that the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/redzine.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/redzine.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/redzine.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redzine.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redzine.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/redzine.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/redzine.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redzine.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redzine.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}