The Highwire with Del Bigtree - BAD SCIENCE SETS ALZHEIMER’S RESEARCH BACK GENERATIONS

Episode Date: December 5, 2022

A new investigation has revealed apparent image tampering in research shaping drug development and a potential cause of Alzheimer’s disease. In the wake of this shocking discovery, the public and scientific community may now be open to environmental causes as the world goes back to the drawing board to find a cure.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

This is one of the biggest stories that we really researched in a while. And this had to do with Alzheimer's. And there's been some just massive potential research fraud. And it has shaken up the entire industry, when I say industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and also the researchers and the scientists that have been involved in it for decades. And what are we talking about here? Science.org, it's a website, did an independent investigation into these allegations. And this is the article. This article lays out the entire story, very detailed, blots on a field. A neuroscience

image sleuth finds signs of fabrication and scores of Alzheimer's articles threatening a reigning theory of the disease. So this is the guy here. His name is Matthew S. Scrogg. And he's an assistant professor of neurology at Vanderbilt Memory and Alzheimer's Center, PhD. He took this research by a couple of other neuroscientists that were petitioning the FDA to stop. a drug that they were going to approve an Alzheimer's drug. They were going to prove that targets this plaque for Alzheimer's. And they hired this guy because they said, look, I think they, we think there's fraudulent, there's fraud in this research. We're going to hire you.

I want you to go through here and look, look at these images to see what you can find. And this guy did this. I mean, he was paid for it, but he did this because he really didn't want the people in the trials to enter these trials thinking that they may get something out of it when there was really no chance if it was a fraudulent. trial of any improvement whatsoever. So really someone after our own heart here at ICANN. But this is the study. So what he did was he was looking at the research of the drug trials. And it forced him to go back to the original study in 2006, a specific amyloid beta protein assembly in the brain impairs

memory. Sylvan Lesne, University of Minnesota, he was the first author. And he is, he's really coined the term amyloid beta star 56. So for, for, you know, almost a century, people have known, researchers have known doctors, have known that these plaques in the brain, amylaid plaques in the brain may be associated with Alzheimer's. They find them in the people that have passed. And then they started to whittle this down, well, there's amyloid beta, and now we have amylaid beta 56. So they're getting more of this like honing in on, well, maybe this is it. And so this is the paper that really kicked this off and just sent the research establishment in a frenzy and saying, got it and we're going to now start aiming therapies and designing therapies towards this amyloid beta star 56.

So this is what the paper says. Some look like shocking, blatant examples of image tampering, says Donna Wilcock, an Alzheimer's expert at the University of Kentucky. The authors appeared to have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments, says Elizabeth Bick, molecular biologists and well-known forensic image consultant that obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results, and that data might have been changed to better fit a hypothesis. It goes on to say, really, this is the big takeaway here. Hundreds of clinical trials of amyloid targeted therapies have yielded few glimmers of promise. However, only the underwhelming adjuhlum, we're going to talk about this in a second,

has gained FDA approval, yet amylaid beta still dominates research and drug development. NIH spent about $1.6 billion on projects that mention amyloids in this fiscal year. about half its overall Alzheimer's funding, scientists who advance other potential Alzheimer's causes, such as immune dysfunction or inflammation, complain they have been sidelined by the amyloid mafia. This is how big and far-reaching this thing is. When we talk about research fraud. $1.6 billion the NIH gets behind this. And again, the same NIH that didn't oversee proper testing of remdesivir or Paxlovid.

We won't even have to bother with the whole vaccine conversation. We're also nauseated by that. But it's just the same thing. These regulatory agencies are as hoodwinked as everybody else if they're not in on it. They may actually be in on it. I mean, it's just hard to imagine with the talent pool that's available at the NIH, CDC, FDA, that you couldn't analyze and look at the photographs to talk about and say, hey, these look like they're spliced together.

I mean, why does this stuff take so long? And why does it come from independent universities and things? when this isn't this what we have a regulatory agency for right right and that is the theme if anybody's watching and really looking for underlying themes of our reporting all the time these regulatory agencies they have to be questioned it's not it's not you know we can obviously throw up our hands and say they're no good but it's just a question the simple questions look at their data ask the questions look at their track records and so this is one of the images that they use a western blot analysis and these are some of the issues here

this dash red box shows the levels of amyloid beta star 56 and you can see it increasing it's getting darker it's staining increasing the older mice as symptoms emerged so this is what could have been made to appear more abundant than it was in the findings if it was fraudulent and so that's that's what we're really talking about with these western blot analysis but let's go back now we're talking about therapies because that's really where the rubber hits the road for for the general public is how do I help my my family and we're we're When we're looking at therapies in November of 2020, this was the headline. And people may have been excited about this or they may have been sad,

but FDA panel slams biogen's controversial Alzheimer's med. So biogen has this med that's going through. It's going to target this amyloid beta plaque. And they have within the FDA, you know, we have, we know we have the VIRPAC committee with the vaccines, but they have a peripheral and central nervous system drug advisory committee. So that's their version of the VIRPAC for drugs. And they were asked, you know, they looked at all. the evidence of these trials and they were asked, is there strong evidence of efficacy? It was only a

one to eight vote. One person said there was strong evidence. And then they went back and said, well, is there a supportive evidence of this? And it was a zero to seven vote. So this independent panel slammed this drug. This drug, it should have never even gotten through the door, according to this panel. So what happens? June 2021. Did the FDA do the right thing? Here's the headline directly from the FDA's own website. FDA's decision to approve new treatment. for Alzheimer's disease. This is Adjahelm. Now understand it's the first novel therapy approved for Alzheimer's disease since 2003. The paper for Ameloy Beta Star 56 was 2006. So we have this new theory. 2006. We have this drug that's going to maybe start focusing on this. It comes out of, you know, testing from biogen.

For the FDA, it's, well, this is the first novel therapy since 2003. We have a lot of research that's advanced since then. Let's just push this thing through, even though we really don't know, we can, you know, maybe say the benefits outweigh the risks. What happens after that? Well, very similar to what happened during the booster push during COVID in 2021. This is the New York Times headlines. Three FDA advisors resign over agency's approval of Alzheimer's drug. The drug adjoelma, a monthly infusion price at 56,000 per year was approved this week, despite weak evidence that it's helps patients. And they also resigned. I mean, we just talked about this just a couple of weeks ago about the COVID booster, where we had two of the top FDA officials that have, you know,

30 years experience in the field walk away because the government is pushing through. FDA pushed through that booster without any evidence that would work. We're talking about Dr. Marion Gruber in that case in Phil Krause, MD. And here we are. And it's the FDA. I mean, it's the same agency. Who's running this agency? Like what you mean? So everyone's jumping ship that actually does the science that says, look, we had a one, was it, one out of eight vote that said this thing's garbage? And then zero of us when we looked at sort of, is there secondary evidence?

Zero out of the seven, you know, voted that, yeah, there's evidence. There's no evidence here. This is a, and so is the idea, is the FDA basically saying just so that we look like we're doing something for Alzheimer's? And since we really haven't put out a drug, We're going to take this one that has no evidence of doing anything for you, but just so you feel like you're doing something by spending $56,000 if you're harder money to try and save your mother and father, that's what's so insidious about this, right? These illnesses are so horrific to watch. Watching your parents usually go through this or, you know, loved ones, I guess unfortunately sometimes it's your brother or sister. You want to do something. So you go to the FDA, go, oh, there's this drug. I trust the FDA. I mean, that's my food.

and drug administration, they wouldn't be recommending if it wasn't valuable. So I guess I'll scratch up every penny I have, try and collect insurance policies, see if I can get this $56,000 a year, all for essentially a ruse. Right. And it went through an accelerated track at the FDA because the evidence wasn't so conclusive that they say in their own documents and their own press release that they presume the benefits outweigh the risk. And because there's really no treatments in this, you know, almost over two decade, almost two decade window. We're going to put this out there because something needs to be done. So, I mean, it's kind of like, yeah, we're going to give it the old heave-ho,

just our best we can do, but it's really not that good. And we're going to, we're going to let you know it's really not that good. So what we're seeing here, you know, understand, too, there's no, there's not a lot of people looking at the cause, the root cause. I mean, epigenetics has been known since 1940s about how your environment can change your genes and change the expression of that. But we're looking at like the after, after, after effects of whatever is going on at these plaques and targeting the plaques. It's really interesting, but we'll notice on the headlines now, the current headlines, there's no admission that there was any type of research fraud or anything like that.

But you can start to see the headlines changing. This is what they look like now. Alzheimer's researchers are looking beyond plaques and tangles for new developments. The shift comes after a series of experimental drugs have succeeded in removing amyloid plaques and tau tangles from the brain. but failed to halt the disease. So we're talking, you know, 20 plus years, they've failed to halt the disease. And we're going to try a little bit of track.

We were led on a dead end road of lies, wasted billions of dollars on R&D investigations, all while there's a real culprit out there that's being avoided, all while Alzheimer's continues to rise in our populations. And these people will walk off in the sunset, probably rich because of it, having done nothing to serve humanity only to just set us back by decades. Right. And, you know, if there is a moment for other researchers to throw off the hand of suppression

and get a platform, there is a space here for researchers like Chris Exley to enter into this conversation and really make a difference. And, you know, this is one of the reasons we're bringing this information forth right now is because there is a space. You know, what it looks like, how hard it is to get into, that's going to be determined. But there is a space now where researchers have thrown up hand and said, look, we've tried our best. It's not working. Let's look at other alternatives. What's out there. Yeah. And to that point, we've tried our best to hide what looks like. I mean, look it. My mom was telling me when I was just, you know, turning a teenager about to get my first deodorant saying, don't use deodorants with aluminum in it. It causes Alzheimer's.

That was something that was like known, you know, to us. And then, you know, I'm going to get deeper into this with Christopher Exley, but a couple of years ago I asked him about that. He dissected the brains of Alzheimer's patients and came out with the conclusion. The levels of aluminum were so much higher in the Alzheimer's patients than those that didn't have it that he concluded no aluminum, no Alzheimer's. He still stands on the ground that Alzheimer's is an aluminum disease. All of the science, all the FDA, all the NIH, why are they lying to us? Because they're trying to protect the industries that are using aluminum in all sorts of ways in your cooking pans and your food and your body products that is causing this, they're protecting them

instead of you. This is the ongoing theme here. The regulatory agencies need to disappear. We need to get rid of them because they stop doing what they were supposed to be doing, which is protecting you from industries that are poisoning you. Now they're protecting the industries from, you know, so that you can't sue, so you have no knowledge of what's going on. I mean, it's really, really bad. And again, like the vaccine issues, like, you know, the rise in autism, same thing. We know you talk to enough parents, you triangulate, you know what's going on here. You have regulatory agencies that are trying to make everybody look everywhere, but, you know, the shell that actually has the problem underneath it.