EXCLUSIVE: Email Exposes How Boss Of NIH-Funded Alzheimer’s ‘Amyloid Mafia’ Shakes Down Critics
The father of the dominant theory of Alzheimer’s disease told another eminent researcher he is “causing harm” by criticizing his theory in an email obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
For three decades University College London neurogeneticist John Hardy and like-minded scholars have been so dominant in promoting the theory that amyloid-beta plaques are the root cause of Alzheimer’s that some journalists and critics have referred to proponents as the “amyloid mafia.”
But recent high-profile retractions and allegations of fraud in hundreds of other papers have threatened to undermine the clique’s supremacy. None of Hardy’s work has been retracted, but he has cited papers with evidence of image manipulation in 58 of his papers.
He is not alone: 77,655 Alzheimer’s papers cite the hundreds of papers compromised by manipulated evidence, according to a February book by Science reporter Charles Piller. Forty-six Alzheimer’s researchers, including major contributors to the amyloid hypothesis, have authored papers with evidence of manipulated data.
In an email to University of Texas at San Antonio neurobiologist George Perry — who is critical of the “amyloid mafia” — Hardy downplayed the impact of revelations of alleged fraud on the field.
“Sometimes you have to know when to say you were wrong,” Hardy said to his critic in the April 5, 2025, email. “It is time to fold because now you are doing harm.”
The email was obtained through a Texas Public Information Act request.
Hardy did not respond to a request for comment. Perry declined to comment.
“Hardy saying George [Perry] is ‘causing harm’ by challenging him doesn’t sound very scientific to me,” said Rudolph Castellani, a Northwestern University neuropathologist who has collaborated with Perry, in an interview with the DCNF. “We can’t even challenge them, we’re just supposed to do whatever they say?”
The stakes are high. More than 8 million Medicare patients have some diagnostic evidence of Alzheimer’s or a related dementia, according to a March study. Drugmakers have invested billions in amyloid-targeted drugs but neurologists are divided on their safety and efficacy.
Taxpayers have invested billions in the theory, too. In fiscal year 2022, as allegations of fraud first broke, half of the NIA budget for Alzheimer’s research — $1.6 billion — focused on amyloid. In 2024, $1.5 billion in NIA projects mentioned “amyloid,” according to an NIH database.
“There are promising ways to prevent Alzheimer’s that have not received support…because they have not aligned with the dominant narrative. I want to expand the set of things NIH looks at so we can make more advances.”
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, NIH Director nominee pic.twitter.com/jPcKaV8OdQ
— Kevin Bass PhD MS (@kevinnbass) March 7, 2025
The Trump administration’s cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding have been met with an outcry from Democrats, with some critics spotlighting cuts to Alzheimer’s research as particularly outrageous.
“When you’re talking about medical research, when you’re talking about people’s lives, when you’re talking about clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease or cancer that may take 3 or 4 years, you can’t just go in and decide, ‘I’m going to shut those down and maybe I’ll try something else.’ Those are people’s lives at risk,” said former NIH Director Francis Collins in an interview with 60 Minutes Sunday.
But the talking points gloss over the current reckoning in the discipline and in the scientific community at large after allegations of fraud.
A 2006 paper in the prestigious journal Nature coauthored by University of Minnesota neurologists Sylvain Lesné and Karen Hsiao Ashe describing an amyloid-beta subtype called an oligomer was retracted in 2024 amid “overwhelming” evidence of image manipulation, following an investigation by Science reporter Charles Piller.
Further investigation implicated NIH employees too. Four months after a whistleblower first flagged concerns about Lesné’s work to the NIH, an NIH program officer who had coauthored the 2006 retracted paper approved a new $3 million grant for Lesné. Piller found that former Neuroscience Division Director of the National Institute on Aging (NIA) Eliezer Masliah coauthored 132 papers with evidence of image manipulation, which were in turn cited in 18,000 scientific papers. Masliah oversaw approximately $2.6 billion in annual research grants by his 2024 ouster.
The scrutiny on the field has provoked blowback from proponents of the conventional wisdom.
Hardy argued in his email to Perry that the Lesné retraction is irrelevant because nobody believed the paper. The paper has been cited 2,372 times.
“No-one believed Lesne anyway,” said Hardy in the email to Perry.
Hardy made a distinction in the email to Perry between the focus of Lesné and Ashe on amyloid oligomers – subtypes of amyloid beta proteins – and the broader amyloid cascade hypothesis that Hardy first postulated.
“Amyloid oligomers the emperor without clothes,” Hardy said.
A Dramatic Shift At HHS
The crossroads in Alzheimer’s research comes amid a dramatic shift at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during a January confirmation hearing that stymied Alzheimer’s research epitomizes wider problems at NIH, where hierarchies can perpetuate irreproducible research and box out novel ideas.
“We’ve lost 20 years in figuring out a cure for Alzheimer’s,” Kennedy said.
RFK JR: “20 years ago NIH scientists did a study on amyloid on Alzheimer’s in which they said it was caused by amyloid plaque. After that NIH shut down studies of any other hypothesis. Twenty years later we now know that those studies were fraudulent. NIH has funded 800 studies… pic.twitter.com/cQJVwqxgo9
— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 29, 2025
By contrast, Hardy argued in the email to Perry that clinical trials of drugs targeting amyloid provide strong evidence that the amyloid cascade hypothesis remains solid.
“Amyloid therapies are working and real world data from wash u and mayo and possibly elsewhere looks better than the trials (admittedly with very careful patient selection),” he wrote. “It looks like the next round of drugs … will be both better and safer.”
Other scientists echo that amyloid-targeting drugs represent a breakthrough.
“It is an extraordinarily exciting time in Alzheimer’s research,” said Indiana University neuroscientist Donna Wilcock, who has been critical of the field’s alleged fraud and advised Piller on his investigation. “We have the first FDA-approved medicines that are proven to slow down the progression of the clinical syndrome as well as remove the plaques from the brain,” she said in reference to two drugs called lecanemab and donanemab.
Lecanemab and donanemab are monoclonal antibody drugs that remove amyloid beta from the brain.
Wilcock said in an email to the DCNF that the Lesné paper “only briefly influenced the field.”
“Very quickly laboratories, including the one I was in at the time, tried to reproduce the findings and were not able to. Within 6 months, through conversations at conferences, it was understood that the beta-amyloid aggregate described by Lesné could not be identified in our studies and the field moved on,” Wilcock said.
It took another 17 years for the study to be retracted.
Others like Castellani said that the drugs have uncertain payoffs and risks of fatal side effects.
“[Hardy’s] ‘doing harm’ comment is a bit much for me, having seen a complication of amyloid therapies on our autopsy table,” Castellani said.
Castellani authored a 2023 paper on a patient receiving lecanemab who experienced a multifocal brain hemorrhage and died.
Like Perry, Castellani is critical of the dominance of the amyloid cascade theory.
“Everyone plays follow the leader and follow the orthodoxy,” he said.
An estimated 60% of people have amyloid plaques in their brains by the end of their lifespans, but only one-fifth of amyloid-positive individuals will develop dementia, according to Alberto J. Espay, a University of Cincinnati neurologist.
Drugmakers have not released detailed data that could answer outstanding questions about side effects like brain swelling and the degree to which anti-amyloid drugs slow cognitive decline, Espay said.
“Hardy is fearmongering Perry. True harm has been and continues to be done to patients in the name of an unfalsifiable and unsupported hypothesis,” he said.
AUTHOR
Emily Kopp
Contributor.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Trump Admin Freezes Additional $1 Billion In NIH Grants To Harvard University
RFK Jr. Meets With Food Company CEOs, Calls For Removal Of Food Dyes
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
