PDA

View Full Version : Bombshell: Possible Fraudulent Images Used In Key Alzheimer’s Study Has Misled Research For Years, Report Says



Teh One Who Knocks
07-25-2022, 05:05 PM
By Ryan Saavedra - The Daily Wire


https://i.imgur.com/Tzi3ZuKl.jpg

Key images from one of the most cited research papers on Alzheimer’s disease this century might have been intentionally fabricated, throwing off years and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxpayer-funded research into the seventh leading cause of death in the United States.

Matthew Schrag, a neuroscientist and physician at Vanderbilt University, stumbled upon the controversial study while investigating an experimental drug for Alzheimer’s.

The 2006 study published in Nature by neuroscientist Sylvain Lesné of the University of Minnesota (UMN) “underpins a key element of the dominant yet controversial amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s, which holds that [protein amyloid beta] Aβ clumps, known as plaques, in brain tissue are a primary cause of the devastating illness,” Science reported.

Science investigated the study and says it corroborated Schrag’s suspicions about Lesné’s research with the help of leading Alzheimer’s researchers and image analysts. The independent experts alleged that some images they reviewed were “shockingly blatant” examples of image tampering.

The authors “appeared to have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments,” Elisabeth Bik, a molecular biologist and well-known forensic image consultant, told the publication. “The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results, and that data might have been changed to … better fit a hypothesis.”

The report noted that the implication of the suspected fraudulent work means that hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) might have been wasted, and that the entire scientific field could have been searching in the wrong direction for the last 16 years for a cure for Alzheimer’s since thousands of studies were based on the study in question.

The study in question came from the lab of UMN physician and neuroscientist Karen Ashe, who won the prestigious Potamkin Prize for neuroscience based partly for her work on the now-scrutinized study, which has been cited in approximately 2,300 research papers. Scientists involved in the research say that Lesné prepared all the images used in the study for publication.

Schrag said that his investigation into Lesné’s and Ashe’s research contained images that appeared to be improperly duplicated or doctored.

Harvard University’s Dennis Selkoe, who was an advocate of the research that Lesné conducted, concluded in reviewing the images that there were “certainly at least 12 or 15 images where I would agree that there is no other explanation” other than the images were intentionally doctored, which he called “very worrisome.”

Selkoe added that there were other red flags with Lesné as some of his scientific comments “made no biochemical sense” to experts because “if it did, we’d all be using” similar methods.

After being confronted about the alleged fraudulent research, which Selkoe deemed was “highly egregious,” he acknowledged that there is now “precious little clearcut evidence that” the specific amyloid beta molecule at the center of the research, amyloid beta star 56 (Aβ*56) “exists, or if it exists, correlates in a reproducible fashion with features of Alzheimer’s—even in animal models.”

Numerous papers by Lesné have been flagged by the scientists leading the investigation for possible instances of fraud, which have led to corrections that have also been problematic.

Another scientist, cell biologist Denis Vivien, a senior scientist at Caen, alleged that in a separate study with Lesné, Lesné provided “dubious” looking research images that students could not replicate. Vivien cut off all contact with Lesné after the incident, saying, “We are never safe from a student who would like to deceive us and we must remain vigilant.”

deebakes
07-26-2022, 01:15 AM
this was all the talk in my lab today

Godfather
07-26-2022, 03:11 AM
My wife is an internal medicine physician with a sub-specialty in geriatric internal med, and focuses a lot of her practice on this field. Sent this to her this morning to get her take out of interest. Her reply: "I have to read into it more, but if it's questioning that beta-amyloid is implicated at all... that would be absolutely fucked".

This will be interesting...


this was all the talk in my lab today

Curious to hear more about what your team was saying?

deebakes
07-26-2022, 03:37 AM
well... we work on alzheimer's disease pathology in mice, but i've been coming at it from a non-neuroscientist to begin with. my training was in tumor biology and by chance, a model i made had a really screwed up non-cancer phenotype of premature aging. from trying to understand why that happened, we've spun to trying to understand why age predisposes to so many pathologies because the model developed cells indicative of the elderly at a very young age. in our hands, the models for ad in mice that relied only on abeta didn't quite fit the story for having an age-dependent component to them. we've focused mostly on tau-based models of neurodegeneration, they fit the pattern much tighter of age-dependent changes influencing disease. so in a way, our experiments didn't fit into the abeta story. because i wasn't trained as a neuroscientist, i just followed where our data led without any preconceived ideas. the team was kind of relieved that we abandoned our abeta arm of research years ago when i spoke to them earlier today.

Godfather
07-26-2022, 05:59 AM
Okay then, I understood approximately none of that, but I'm glad someone far, far smarter than me is lookin' into it :lol:

Fodster
07-26-2022, 09:00 AM
Only opened this cos of the Bombshell headline, was expecting a busy blonde doing something daft!

PorkChopSandwiches
07-26-2022, 03:05 PM
My mom has Alzheimer :(

DemonGeminiX
07-26-2022, 03:36 PM
well... we work on alzheimer's disease pathology in mice, but i've been coming at it from a non-neuroscientist to begin with. my training was in tumor biology and by chance, a model i made had a really screwed up non-cancer phenotype of premature aging. from trying to understand why that happened, we've spun to trying to understand why age predisposes to so many pathologies because the model developed cells indicative of the elderly at a very young age. in our hands, the models for ad in mice that relied only on abeta didn't quite fit the story for having an age-dependent component to them. we've focused mostly on tau-based models of neurodegeneration, they fit the pattern much tighter of age-dependent changes influencing disease. so in a way, our experiments didn't fit into the abeta story. because i wasn't trained as a neuroscientist, i just followed where our data led without any preconceived ideas. the team was kind of relieved that we abandoned our abeta arm of research years ago when i spoke to them earlier today.


Okay then, I understood approximately none of that, but I'm glad someone far, far smarter than me is lookin' into it :lol:

He was looking into this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyloid_beta

and decided it wasn't explaining the story, so he started looking into this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_protein

DemonGeminiX
07-26-2022, 03:37 PM
My mom has Alzheimer :(

I'm so sorry, Porky. :hug:

deebakes
07-27-2022, 02:26 AM
Okay then, I understood approximately none of that, but I'm glad someone far, far smarter than me is lookin' into it :lol:

welcome to me reading your investment posts :lol:

happy to explain any time, i still need to get up to your area at some point, on my list of places i am excited to visit

deebakes
07-27-2022, 02:27 AM
My mom has Alzheimer :(

sorry buddy, it is a terrible disease for people and their families

Teh One Who Knocks
07-27-2022, 01:29 PM
By Ryan Saavedra - The Daily Wire


https://i.imgur.com/xkI5QNBl.jpg

The U.S. Department of Justice has reportedly launched a criminal investigation into a manufacturer of an Alzheimer’s drug over allegations that the company fabricated research findings for the drug.

Federal prosecutors’ investigation into Cassava Sciences centers around whether the company defrauded investors, government agencies, or consumers, Reuters reported.

The investigation comes after a bombshell report was published last week in Science Magazine about how key images from one of the most cited research papers on Alzheimer’s disease this century might have been intentionally fabricated, throwing off years and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxpayer-funded research into the seventh leading cause of death in the United States.

Matthew Schrag, a neuroscientist and physician at Vanderbilt University, stumbled upon the controversial study while investigating an experimental drug for Alzheimer’s called Simufilam, which is manufactured by Cassava Sciences.

Schrag was contacted by an attorney that was investigating the drug on behalf of two prominent neuroscientists who said that some of the research behind the drug was “fraudulent.”

The report in Science Magazine then pivots to how Schrag’s investigation into the drug eventually led him to investigating a 2006 study published in Nature by neuroscientist Sylvain Lesné of the University of Minnesota (UMN) that “underpins a key element of the dominant yet controversial amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s, which holds that [protein amyloid beta] Aβ clumps, known as plaques, in brain tissue are a primary cause of the devastating illness,” Science reported.

Science investigated the study and says it corroborated Schrag’s suspicions about Lesné’s research with the help of leading Alzheimer’s researchers and image analysts. The independent experts alleged that some images they reviewed were “shockingly blatant” examples of image tampering.

The authors “appeared to have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments,” Elisabeth Bik, a molecular biologist and well-known forensic image consultant, told the publication. “The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results, and that data might have been changed to … better fit a hypothesis.”

The report noted that the implication of the suspected fraudulent work means that hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) might have been wasted, and that the entire scientific field could have been searching in the wrong direction for the last 16 years for a cure for Alzheimer’s since thousands of studies were based on the study in question.

deebakes
07-28-2022, 02:21 AM
although at first these seem linked, they are actually stemming from different places. the u of mn paper has nothing to do with cassava (as far as i understand it)