What do you think?
Rate this book
Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer's
For readers of Empire of Pain and Dopesick, an arresting deep dive into how Alzheimer’s disease treatment has been set back by corrupt researchers, negligent regulators, and the profit motives of Big Pharma.
Nearly seven million Americans live with Alzheimer’s disease, a tragedy that is already projected to grow into a $1 trillion crisis by 2050. While families suffer and promises of pharmaceutical breakthroughs keep coming up short, investigative journalist Charles Piller’s Doctored shows that we’ve quite likely been walking the wrong path to finding a cure all along—led astray by a cabal of self-interested researchers, government accomplices, and corporate greed.
Piller begins with a whistleblower—Vanderbilt professor Matthew Schrag—whose work exposed a massive scandal. Schrag found that a University of Minnesota lab led by a precocious young scientist and a Nobel Prize–rumored director delivered apparently falsified data at the heart of the leading hypothesis about the disease. Piller’s revelations of Schrag’s findings stunned the field and the public.
From there, based on years of investigative reporting, Doctored exposes a vast network of deceit and its players, all the way up to the FDA. Piller uncovers evidence that hundreds of important Alzheimer’s research papers are based on false data. In the process, he reveals how even against a flood of money and influence, a determined cadre of scientific renegades have fought back to challenge the field’s institutional powers in service to science and the tens of thousands of patients who have been drawn into trials to test dubious drugs. It is a shocking tale with huge ramifications not only for Alzheimer’s disease, but for scientific research, funding, and oversight at large.
Nearly seven million Americans live with Alzheimer’s disease, a tragedy that is already projected to grow into a $1 trillion crisis by 2050. While families suffer and promises of pharmaceutical breakthroughs keep coming up short, investigative journalist Charles Piller’s Doctored shows that we’ve quite likely been walking the wrong path to finding a cure all along—led astray by a cabal of self-interested researchers, government accomplices, and corporate greed.
Piller begins with a whistleblower—Vanderbilt professor Matthew Schrag—whose work exposed a massive scandal. Schrag found that a University of Minnesota lab led by a precocious young scientist and a Nobel Prize–rumored director delivered apparently falsified data at the heart of the leading hypothesis about the disease. Piller’s revelations of Schrag’s findings stunned the field and the public.
From there, based on years of investigative reporting, Doctored exposes a vast network of deceit and its players, all the way up to the FDA. Piller uncovers evidence that hundreds of important Alzheimer’s research papers are based on false data. In the process, he reveals how even against a flood of money and influence, a determined cadre of scientific renegades have fought back to challenge the field’s institutional powers in service to science and the tens of thousands of patients who have been drawn into trials to test dubious drugs. It is a shocking tale with huge ramifications not only for Alzheimer’s disease, but for scientific research, funding, and oversight at large.
352 pages, Hardcover
Published February 4, 2025
177 people are currently reading
1740 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews
March 3, 2025
Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer's was published in 2025. It is one of the most important and distressing books I have read in 2025.
The dominant hypothesis that amyloid-beta proteins and tau tangles cause Alzheimer's has been in existence for decades, but little progress has been made to slow, stop or reverse cognitive decline.
In 2023 and 2024, the FDA approved two Alzheimer's drugs, Leqembi and Kisunla. The drugs target beta amyloid plaques and are believed to slow cognitive impairment. This was dramatic, exciting news for doctors, pharma companies, patients, families, and caregivers.
A credible, experienced, humble, neurologist and neuroscientist discovered brain images that had been altered by scientists in order to be published in respected science journals, receive funding from NIH (National Institute of Health) and/or pharma companies, and advance their careers and status.
Not only had this occurred with recent scientific discoveries, but it was also prevalent when Alzheimer's was originally linked to the amyloid hypothesis.
Charles Piller, an investigative journalist for Science magazine, and author of Gene Wars: Military Control over the New Genetic Technologies and The Fail-Safe Society: Community Defiance and the End of American Technological Optimism set out to unmask decades of arrogance, greed, fabulism, and error that sidelined other ideas and resources to find a cure for Alzheimer's.
This book reads like a fast-paced thriller with robust character development, but it is not fiction. I kept hoping others would speak up even though it was highly probable it would negatively impact their careers. The depth and breadth of deception is jaw dropping. It's criminal.
Memorable passages include:
* It's zombie science
* Everything is Figureoutable
* Beware of dogma
* Outlandish, revolutionary, or false scientific findings can stand for many years without public efforts to replicate or repudicate them, sometimes leading to catastrophic wastes of time, resources, and even lives.
* Between 1999 and 2015, rates for the top three causes of death in the US fell sharply. Alzheimer's rates and fatalities went in the opposite direction.
* You can't cheat to cure a disease
* The history of whistleblowing is littered with corpses
* An entrenched idea can become difficult to dislodge
* Leqembi shrunk the brain rapidly---more rapidly than Alzheimer's itself
* The FDA provisionally approved Leqembi even before seeing the major trial results
* Later, the FDA required a "black box warning" on Leqembi; denotes the risk of death.
* Some pharma companies are advocating trials targeting amyloid deposits in patients as young as eighteen
* How has a protein associated with Alzheimer's been studied for over thirty-five years, with billions of dollars of research funding and hundreds of scientists dedicated to unraveling its role, has yet to generate a clear answer, or even a consensus?
* Cheaters are always one step ahead of the detectors
* One in fifty scientists admits to having fabricated or falsified experimental data
* Humility is essential to scientific credibility
* It's all about the money and always has been
I highly recommend this book!
The dominant hypothesis that amyloid-beta proteins and tau tangles cause Alzheimer's has been in existence for decades, but little progress has been made to slow, stop or reverse cognitive decline.
In 2023 and 2024, the FDA approved two Alzheimer's drugs, Leqembi and Kisunla. The drugs target beta amyloid plaques and are believed to slow cognitive impairment. This was dramatic, exciting news for doctors, pharma companies, patients, families, and caregivers.
A credible, experienced, humble, neurologist and neuroscientist discovered brain images that had been altered by scientists in order to be published in respected science journals, receive funding from NIH (National Institute of Health) and/or pharma companies, and advance their careers and status.
Not only had this occurred with recent scientific discoveries, but it was also prevalent when Alzheimer's was originally linked to the amyloid hypothesis.
Charles Piller, an investigative journalist for Science magazine, and author of Gene Wars: Military Control over the New Genetic Technologies and The Fail-Safe Society: Community Defiance and the End of American Technological Optimism set out to unmask decades of arrogance, greed, fabulism, and error that sidelined other ideas and resources to find a cure for Alzheimer's.
This book reads like a fast-paced thriller with robust character development, but it is not fiction. I kept hoping others would speak up even though it was highly probable it would negatively impact their careers. The depth and breadth of deception is jaw dropping. It's criminal.
Memorable passages include:
* It's zombie science
* Everything is Figureoutable
* Beware of dogma
* Outlandish, revolutionary, or false scientific findings can stand for many years without public efforts to replicate or repudicate them, sometimes leading to catastrophic wastes of time, resources, and even lives.
* Between 1999 and 2015, rates for the top three causes of death in the US fell sharply. Alzheimer's rates and fatalities went in the opposite direction.
* You can't cheat to cure a disease
* The history of whistleblowing is littered with corpses
* An entrenched idea can become difficult to dislodge
* Leqembi shrunk the brain rapidly---more rapidly than Alzheimer's itself
* The FDA provisionally approved Leqembi even before seeing the major trial results
* Later, the FDA required a "black box warning" on Leqembi; denotes the risk of death.
* Some pharma companies are advocating trials targeting amyloid deposits in patients as young as eighteen
* How has a protein associated with Alzheimer's been studied for over thirty-five years, with billions of dollars of research funding and hundreds of scientists dedicated to unraveling its role, has yet to generate a clear answer, or even a consensus?
* Cheaters are always one step ahead of the detectors
* One in fifty scientists admits to having fabricated or falsified experimental data
* Humility is essential to scientific credibility
* It's all about the money and always has been
I highly recommend this book!
June 17, 2025
Have to admit that I had hoped to like this more. This is the kind of book I usually find "fun" to read. But I was a bit bored. I usually don't mind technical or medical jargon in books like this, but this one got a bit lost in the details. Plus, the entire book is laid out in the title. No surprises there.
3.5 stars
3.5 stars
October 27, 2024
I received a free copy of, Doctored, by Charles Piller, from the publisher and Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. Alzheimer's is a horrible disease, millions of American suffer with it, and their families too. This book shows how they people who can cure this disease are not. This was a very insightful read.
August 17, 2025
Doctored : Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s (2025) by Charles Piller is a fantastic book. It describes in detail the deception and fraud that has happened in research into Alzheimer’s disease. Charles Piller is a journalist who writes for Science. He wrote in science about the problems that are described in detail in the book.
Piller starts by describing a sad fate millions have known, declining into Alzheimer’s. Millions have also known a parent or other relative with Alzheimer’s declining and the desperation to do something. This sets the ground for the importance of research into the disease.
Next comes flattering portraits of some successful scientists. Lindsay Burns, a child of ranchers in Montana who went Harvard, rowed for the United States at the Olympics and got a PhD from Cambridge in neuropsychology. She is one of many of the scientists described who were clearly brilliant, hardworking and driven. Burns joined Pain Therapeutics, there she was one of the key scientists along with the brilliant Hoau-Yan Wang, a researcher at City University of New York (CUNY). Their drugs into pain research had not fared well but they then developed PTI-125 . Burns married the CEO of the company, Remi Barbier. With a possible Alzheimer’s cure Pain Therapeutics transformed into Cassava Sciences. There was just one problem. The science that backed up the efficacy for PTI-125 working was not robust.
Wang’s work describing how PTI-125 fixed a mis-folded protein filamin A was done by taking dead brain tissue and then indicating he could bring it back to life, use PTI-125 and fix problems with filamin A. No one else could replicate the work. The PTI-125 derived drug, now called simufilam had trials that were allegedly successful. Cassava Sciences had a market cap of $5.4 Bn. However, this didn’t last long. Two neuroscientists, Geoffrey Pitt and David Bredt submitted a ‘citizens petition’ to the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) suggesting that research supporting simufilam was not reliable. In particular they suggested that numerous images used in the research had been ‘doctored’ . They had used the services of a young scientist at Vanderbilt University. Cassava Sciences’ market cap collapsed.
The question would become, was this one singular case of malfeasance or was there more to it ?
Matthew Schrag was the scientist at Vanderbilt. Schrag is an MD PhD who is a neurologist. He was the expert who examined the images. He also worked through the data behind simuflam and exposed it. He emerges from the book as a real hero. After examining simuflam Schrag, along with collaborators on Pub Peer began to look at other Alzheimer’s research.
The book then shifts to Sylvan Lesne, another brilliant medical researcher from France. He found remarkable results and got a job at the University of Minnesota in the lab of Karen Ashe, yet another incredibly talented medical researcher. Lesne would work for her and write one hugely successful paper after another. Alas, he was also fixing up data and images. The two brought in millions for their lab.
The stories build and build after that. Repeatedly, people working on the Amaloid Beta hypothesis for the causes of Alzheimer’s were shown to have altered data and tampered with images. The book chronicles how this occurred in numerous highly funded labs. This does not necessarily mean that the hypothesis is incorrect, but it does undermine it.
Repeatedly senior scientists are shown to have received millions in grants based on manipulated data. The scientists also did very lucrative work with drug companies that worked on drugs that were meant to combat Alzheimer’s.
The book concludes with a list of author’s whose work is shown to be suspect. There are 571 suspected unique papers with 77 thousand citations to them. There were people around the world falsifying their data. It’s a huge scandal. The H-index is an index of the impact of a scientist. An H-index of more than 30 is extremely impressive, or should be. There is a table of the H-index of people involved in Alzheimer’s research with H-indexes of 58 or to 137. They cite these suspect papers from 58 to 137 times.
Piller writes that various people spoke to him and worried that what he was uncovering would reduce trust in science. It really does. It also should. Alas, it’s not confined to Alzheimer’s research. Psychology has a replication crisis. In Physics numerous authors have wondered if almost half a century of research into string theory despite experiments failing to confirm it is a serious problem. Science itself appears to be the best remedy for these problems. As Schrag says “You have to have a near-religious commitment to research integrity”, he goes on “If the rules apply to others, they have to apply to all of us”. Wikipedia has a list of scientific misconduct incidents. It may just be the tip of the iceberg.
The book does have some optimism. Piller writes about some researchers including Schrag whose work does stand up to careful searches for doctored data and images. In the book there is a suggestion that more money should be spent on checking high impact research papers. It appears the answer to bad science is probably more science. It also should mean ‘nullius in verba’ . That is the motto of the British Royal Society and means ‘take nobody’s word for it’.
Doctored is an excellent book. Piller has done terrific work in writing the articles that led to the book and in putting it all together. He writes well and paints a very worrying but important picture. It’s very much worth reading for anyone interested in science.
Piller starts by describing a sad fate millions have known, declining into Alzheimer’s. Millions have also known a parent or other relative with Alzheimer’s declining and the desperation to do something. This sets the ground for the importance of research into the disease.
Next comes flattering portraits of some successful scientists. Lindsay Burns, a child of ranchers in Montana who went Harvard, rowed for the United States at the Olympics and got a PhD from Cambridge in neuropsychology. She is one of many of the scientists described who were clearly brilliant, hardworking and driven. Burns joined Pain Therapeutics, there she was one of the key scientists along with the brilliant Hoau-Yan Wang, a researcher at City University of New York (CUNY). Their drugs into pain research had not fared well but they then developed PTI-125 . Burns married the CEO of the company, Remi Barbier. With a possible Alzheimer’s cure Pain Therapeutics transformed into Cassava Sciences. There was just one problem. The science that backed up the efficacy for PTI-125 working was not robust.
Wang’s work describing how PTI-125 fixed a mis-folded protein filamin A was done by taking dead brain tissue and then indicating he could bring it back to life, use PTI-125 and fix problems with filamin A. No one else could replicate the work. The PTI-125 derived drug, now called simufilam had trials that were allegedly successful. Cassava Sciences had a market cap of $5.4 Bn. However, this didn’t last long. Two neuroscientists, Geoffrey Pitt and David Bredt submitted a ‘citizens petition’ to the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) suggesting that research supporting simufilam was not reliable. In particular they suggested that numerous images used in the research had been ‘doctored’ . They had used the services of a young scientist at Vanderbilt University. Cassava Sciences’ market cap collapsed.
The question would become, was this one singular case of malfeasance or was there more to it ?
Matthew Schrag was the scientist at Vanderbilt. Schrag is an MD PhD who is a neurologist. He was the expert who examined the images. He also worked through the data behind simuflam and exposed it. He emerges from the book as a real hero. After examining simuflam Schrag, along with collaborators on Pub Peer began to look at other Alzheimer’s research.
The book then shifts to Sylvan Lesne, another brilliant medical researcher from France. He found remarkable results and got a job at the University of Minnesota in the lab of Karen Ashe, yet another incredibly talented medical researcher. Lesne would work for her and write one hugely successful paper after another. Alas, he was also fixing up data and images. The two brought in millions for their lab.
The stories build and build after that. Repeatedly, people working on the Amaloid Beta hypothesis for the causes of Alzheimer’s were shown to have altered data and tampered with images. The book chronicles how this occurred in numerous highly funded labs. This does not necessarily mean that the hypothesis is incorrect, but it does undermine it.
Repeatedly senior scientists are shown to have received millions in grants based on manipulated data. The scientists also did very lucrative work with drug companies that worked on drugs that were meant to combat Alzheimer’s.
The book concludes with a list of author’s whose work is shown to be suspect. There are 571 suspected unique papers with 77 thousand citations to them. There were people around the world falsifying their data. It’s a huge scandal. The H-index is an index of the impact of a scientist. An H-index of more than 30 is extremely impressive, or should be. There is a table of the H-index of people involved in Alzheimer’s research with H-indexes of 58 or to 137. They cite these suspect papers from 58 to 137 times.
Piller writes that various people spoke to him and worried that what he was uncovering would reduce trust in science. It really does. It also should. Alas, it’s not confined to Alzheimer’s research. Psychology has a replication crisis. In Physics numerous authors have wondered if almost half a century of research into string theory despite experiments failing to confirm it is a serious problem. Science itself appears to be the best remedy for these problems. As Schrag says “You have to have a near-religious commitment to research integrity”, he goes on “If the rules apply to others, they have to apply to all of us”. Wikipedia has a list of scientific misconduct incidents. It may just be the tip of the iceberg.
The book does have some optimism. Piller writes about some researchers including Schrag whose work does stand up to careful searches for doctored data and images. In the book there is a suggestion that more money should be spent on checking high impact research papers. It appears the answer to bad science is probably more science. It also should mean ‘nullius in verba’ . That is the motto of the British Royal Society and means ‘take nobody’s word for it’.
Doctored is an excellent book. Piller has done terrific work in writing the articles that led to the book and in putting it all together. He writes well and paints a very worrying but important picture. It’s very much worth reading for anyone interested in science.
March 11, 2025
Even more than the Alzheimer's aspect, this is a depressing look at medical research in general. Compared to occasionally reading articles on this subject, the book gave me a clearer perspective: I had the impression that the amyloid hypothesis was cemented by a lot of fraud, which led to earnest but futile research, while it seems more like academic nepotism and politics are the primary problem throughout, with fraud as one of their mechanisms. Even if most researchers are honest, the dishonest ones are more likely to be influential because they're working with an unfair advantage.
This is more personal than expected, with the author taking a major role, but I changed my mind on this: it's appropriate because the investigative journalism is itself part of this story.
This is more personal than expected, with the author taking a major role, but I changed my mind on this: it's appropriate because the investigative journalism is itself part of this story.
March 17, 2025
not a terrible book but it was terribly long, and felt like it kept retreading the same points while trying to maintain this sense of constant “you won’t believe what happened next!!” at the end of every chapter, like it was justifying its own existence. certainly a very important topic and insight into the state of clinical research and the pitfalls of publish or perish science, but it definitely could’ve been more succinct with the same impact.
April 7, 2025
Riveting. A real page turner.
I'm a psychiatric geneticist by training, so I am not directly up-to-date with the latest on Alzheimers. However, I think everyone in science is at least acutely aware of the substantial and disquieting number of allegations concerning scientific misconduct at the highest echelons of the field. I just had to read this book.
Doctored serves as a meticulously documented account of these issues and stands as a compelling example of investigative journalism. In tone and depth, it evokes parallels to John Carreyrou’s Bad Blood, which chronicled the meteoric rise and fall of Theranos under the mercurial Elizabeth Holmes. That said, I suspect Doctored may not achieve the same cultural or commercial impact, if only because the pharmaceutical entities involved—such as Cassava Therapeutics—have not attained comparable prominence.
Highly recommended.
I'm a psychiatric geneticist by training, so I am not directly up-to-date with the latest on Alzheimers. However, I think everyone in science is at least acutely aware of the substantial and disquieting number of allegations concerning scientific misconduct at the highest echelons of the field. I just had to read this book.
Doctored serves as a meticulously documented account of these issues and stands as a compelling example of investigative journalism. In tone and depth, it evokes parallels to John Carreyrou’s Bad Blood, which chronicled the meteoric rise and fall of Theranos under the mercurial Elizabeth Holmes. That said, I suspect Doctored may not achieve the same cultural or commercial impact, if only because the pharmaceutical entities involved—such as Cassava Therapeutics—have not attained comparable prominence.
Highly recommended.
September 12, 2025
Good research with layout akin to a collection of articles. Wasn't exactly drawn in, but I appreciate all the data compiled.
March 16, 2025
This a sobering, and somewhat depressing book to read because of the subject of scientific malpractice, data fabrication, and potential money wasted that potentially could have saved lives for people suffering from Alzheimer's. Piller writes a compelling case for a subfield of medicine that had foundations of sand because of many scientists doctoring the data and images to support their research regime. Luckily there are scientists and people of integrity that found and exposed such malpractice, even at risk to themselves (from a career or monetary perspective).
The book ends with some hopefulness about the future, but it really raises the question of how widespread such behavior is within other fields of science. One can hope that other fields have proven more rigorous, but such episodes remind us that even fields of science are quite fallible, especially to those willing to cheat to get ahead.
The book ends with some hopefulness about the future, but it really raises the question of how widespread such behavior is within other fields of science. One can hope that other fields have proven more rigorous, but such episodes remind us that even fields of science are quite fallible, especially to those willing to cheat to get ahead.
Read
March 20, 2025I’m feeling like I’m a little too biased to give this a star rating, given that I work where this story was originally reported for, but I will say: You should read this book! It’s top-tier investigative journalism—and you’ll learn a lot about both the journalism and the science.
April 12, 2025
After reading Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s, my trust in medical and government health institutions is obliterated. The book is sobering, enlightening, and infuriating. Charles Piller, investigative journalist, delves into the history of Alzheimer’s research, beginning with the theory identified as the key to Alzheimer’s, labeled the Amyloid Hypothesis, which was lauded as the root cause, spawning millions of dollars of Alzheimer’s disease research, publication of journal papers, drug trials, and drugs taken to market. In its wake are manipulated data published in reputable journals on Alzheimer’s disease, retracted papers, scientists exposed as frauds, and patients experiencing disappointment, frustration, and, in some cases, death as a result of trial drugs.
I was shocked to learn of the lack of fact-checking at reputable journals for their published papers, the lack of rigorous vetting of government officials (FDA and National Institute of Aging) responsible for funding and resource allocations for healthcare, drug trials, and research dedicated to Alzheimer’s, and the say-nothing and corrupt culture within select research departments in higher education institutions. The negligence and recklessness for Alzheimer's patients and their families as described by Piller is egregious, as is the convoluted path to find a cure, which appeared not to be about science at all, but about power, prestige, and money.
Piller’s research is extensive. It includes interactions and discussions with his sources (his primary source is Matthew Shrag, a scientist and assistant professor who was instrumental in the story), descriptions of sloppy research, manipulated data and images within hundreds of research papers, and the key players who contributed to some of the biggest failures in clinical drug trials to date.
It was infuriating to read about the scientists who thrived in the industry—their rise in position, prestige, and funding due to manipulated and embellished data—essentially bad science. Most egregious was Eliezer Masliah, director of the Division of Neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) from 2016 to 2024. He wrote over 200 papers on the amyloid hypothesis alone, of which several featured manipulated images that skewed research results. At the NIA, Masliah was responsible for dispensing Alzheimer’s research dollars, with an annual budget of 2.6 billion. He was the world’s most powerful Alzheimer’s scientist during his tenure at the NIA. Furthermore, the NIA set the agenda worldwide for age-related diseases” (p. 246). Perhaps we can feel relieved that Maliah was fired in 2024, yet it raises the question of how he was hired in the first place and was given license to make decisions on manipulated science, and, that no progress was made for Alzheimer's treatments during his tenure. Piller shares Shrag's insight of Masliah :
The influence of dubious work by Masliah in advancing drugs to market for clinical testing reflects a “deeply rooted problem” in neuroscience, Schrag said. “Too many people providing intellectual leadership in the field turn a blind eye when data look too good to be true but are convenient for pet hypotheses” or commercial interest. (P 250).
Doctored is an important book for the public. It reminds me of the metaphor—the emperor has no clothes. I admire PIller for his tenacity and dedication to bringing the story to light.
I was shocked to learn of the lack of fact-checking at reputable journals for their published papers, the lack of rigorous vetting of government officials (FDA and National Institute of Aging) responsible for funding and resource allocations for healthcare, drug trials, and research dedicated to Alzheimer’s, and the say-nothing and corrupt culture within select research departments in higher education institutions. The negligence and recklessness for Alzheimer's patients and their families as described by Piller is egregious, as is the convoluted path to find a cure, which appeared not to be about science at all, but about power, prestige, and money.
Piller’s research is extensive. It includes interactions and discussions with his sources (his primary source is Matthew Shrag, a scientist and assistant professor who was instrumental in the story), descriptions of sloppy research, manipulated data and images within hundreds of research papers, and the key players who contributed to some of the biggest failures in clinical drug trials to date.
It was infuriating to read about the scientists who thrived in the industry—their rise in position, prestige, and funding due to manipulated and embellished data—essentially bad science. Most egregious was Eliezer Masliah, director of the Division of Neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) from 2016 to 2024. He wrote over 200 papers on the amyloid hypothesis alone, of which several featured manipulated images that skewed research results. At the NIA, Masliah was responsible for dispensing Alzheimer’s research dollars, with an annual budget of 2.6 billion. He was the world’s most powerful Alzheimer’s scientist during his tenure at the NIA. Furthermore, the NIA set the agenda worldwide for age-related diseases” (p. 246). Perhaps we can feel relieved that Maliah was fired in 2024, yet it raises the question of how he was hired in the first place and was given license to make decisions on manipulated science, and, that no progress was made for Alzheimer's treatments during his tenure. Piller shares Shrag's insight of Masliah :
The influence of dubious work by Masliah in advancing drugs to market for clinical testing reflects a “deeply rooted problem” in neuroscience, Schrag said. “Too many people providing intellectual leadership in the field turn a blind eye when data look too good to be true but are convenient for pet hypotheses” or commercial interest. (P 250).
Doctored is an important book for the public. It reminds me of the metaphor—the emperor has no clothes. I admire PIller for his tenacity and dedication to bringing the story to light.
December 8, 2025
It's possible that part of my dissatisfaction with Doctored as a book stems from the fact that I know about a lot of these specific fraudulent studies. I have a bizarre fascination with scientific fraud as a concept (I also read the more wide-ranging Fraud in the Lab: The High Stakes of Scientific Research last year) and have followed the investigative reporting into Alzheimer's research fraud with increasing horror over the past few years. This means that by the time I got to Doctored, not all that much in terms of the scientific implications was new to me, though many details regarding the involved individuals themselves were.
It's possible that this is part of why I felt like Doctored was a deeply repetitive book, though to be honest, I think the main problem is that Charles Piller loops back to hammer home the same points every other chapter, and also seems to feel like every step of this investigation needs some extra Drama. The personal touches and attempted humanization of the various researchers involved in his investigation (good and bad) aren't enough to change the fact that the story really deals with a few core cases of gross scientific misconduct, and then the larger matter of systemic "arrogance" (to quote from the book's subtitle). The book doesn't feel well done as a book, hopping as it does between the different fraud cases (which makes each feel disjointed and also means that Piller repeats himself, reintroducing "characters" that have already been discussed extensively until now). It felt like each chapter was meant to be its own mini-exposé, but things didn't always fit together all that well. I ended up exhausted and frustrated by how I couldn't actually get to the core of Piller's arguments and investigative work because of the repetitions. This is also very much one of those books with a strong "authorial voice", which made sense at times but still tired me out somewhat.
The exploration of the scientific fraud itself is important and depressing. I highly recommend reading the relevant Science and Nature investigative reports on fraud in Alzheimer's research and in other fields, and even skimming through Doctored to get a sense of the scope. But I didn't really like this book on the whole. It has its value, but it doesn't feel like it's worth the entire book rather than select portions.
It's possible that this is part of why I felt like Doctored was a deeply repetitive book, though to be honest, I think the main problem is that Charles Piller loops back to hammer home the same points every other chapter, and also seems to feel like every step of this investigation needs some extra Drama. The personal touches and attempted humanization of the various researchers involved in his investigation (good and bad) aren't enough to change the fact that the story really deals with a few core cases of gross scientific misconduct, and then the larger matter of systemic "arrogance" (to quote from the book's subtitle). The book doesn't feel well done as a book, hopping as it does between the different fraud cases (which makes each feel disjointed and also means that Piller repeats himself, reintroducing "characters" that have already been discussed extensively until now). It felt like each chapter was meant to be its own mini-exposé, but things didn't always fit together all that well. I ended up exhausted and frustrated by how I couldn't actually get to the core of Piller's arguments and investigative work because of the repetitions. This is also very much one of those books with a strong "authorial voice", which made sense at times but still tired me out somewhat.
The exploration of the scientific fraud itself is important and depressing. I highly recommend reading the relevant Science and Nature investigative reports on fraud in Alzheimer's research and in other fields, and even skimming through Doctored to get a sense of the scope. But I didn't really like this book on the whole. It has its value, but it doesn't feel like it's worth the entire book rather than select portions.
June 1, 2025
The scientific misconduct described in this book is shocking and tragic for potentially setting the field of Alzheimer's research back (in terms of misdirecting funding and research spurred by papers whose results may have been fabricated). It's only very near the end of the book that a chapter attempts to assess the "Impact on Alzheimer's" research in general, and for a couple of chapters before that, there is a more systematic attempt to quantify the amount of fraud. Before that, the book chases around for many long chapters a couple of authors whose papers likely contained altered images/irregular protocols and the sleuths who found the irregularities. Piller also talks an awful lot about his thoughts about his journalism work (not that it is not important, but still). I did very much appreciate that Piller quoted others commenting on the potential impact of PubPeer and his reporting on both the authors whose work is scrutinized and on science as a whole.
It is also unfortunately not until near the very end where we meet interesting characters such as Nobel laureate Thomas Südhof, who models the solution (making raw data available, admitting mistakes and making corrections, having empathy for students and postdocs who are under pressure, and discerning whether the mistakes invalidate the results or not). There is no mention or at least no emphasis on whether the rate of fraud has been declining since many journals like PLoS ONE started requiring the submission of raw data along with the manuscript (+ the AI tools for detecting altered images that some journals are now using according to this book). Pre-registration of protocols and other ways journals and the scientific community can reduce the likelihood of cheating were not really discussed in earnest.
It is also unfortunately not until near the very end where we meet interesting characters such as Nobel laureate Thomas Südhof, who models the solution (making raw data available, admitting mistakes and making corrections, having empathy for students and postdocs who are under pressure, and discerning whether the mistakes invalidate the results or not). There is no mention or at least no emphasis on whether the rate of fraud has been declining since many journals like PLoS ONE started requiring the submission of raw data along with the manuscript (+ the AI tools for detecting altered images that some journals are now using according to this book). Pre-registration of protocols and other ways journals and the scientific community can reduce the likelihood of cheating were not really discussed in earnest.
April 7, 2025
This is a sobering and meticulously researched book on the scientific misconduct in Alzheimer’s research. While the early chapters are dense and at times difficult to engage with, due to technical detail, the book captured my interest most during the broader look at research ethics, systemic failures, and the human cost of scientific fraud. I am a fan of investigative journalism and appreciated the insights surrounding the pressures of academia, the flaws in peer review, and the consequences of chasing prestige over progress. Very thought-provoking and worth the read, or listen.
Sincere thanks to NetGalley and Atria for an advanced reader copy in exchange for an honest review.
Sincere thanks to NetGalley and Atria for an advanced reader copy in exchange for an honest review.
Read
February 26, 2025One can only take so much gleeful description of horrific animal torture before wanting to give up. DNF at 22%. I know animal research is a thing, especially in neuroscience. I know I am likely to run into it in a book like this. But, the utter lack of respect or acknowledgement of what these animals are put through coupled with the opposite- speaking solely about these practices as if they are gee golly sunshine and rainbows worthy of celebration (no matter how many times they don't translate to humans nor lead to viable treatments anyway) is just gross and further proof of how detached captive animal researchers are from the animals they harm. I guess you have to be to mentally survive that job. Maybe I'd believe in animal research ethics if they ever mentioned them.
Not super sad as I found the book kinda mediocre so far anyway even though the author clearly cares about the subject.
Not super sad as I found the book kinda mediocre so far anyway even though the author clearly cares about the subject.
April 1, 2025
Ignore the Critics
This a very important book that is also a decent read. I was familiar with the core issues making it a bit easier to absorb the content…except…the larger issue - corruption, incompetence and institutional indifference in the Alzheimer’s ecosystem. If you have any interest in drug development, the process of scientific discovery, Alzheimer’s or good reporting, this is your kind of book. BTW, the first time I listened to speakers discussing the amyloid beta hypothesis, in 2006 or so, I thought it so illogical as to be a fad. I am not a doc or scientist but I can think. You may feel the same after reading this book.
This a very important book that is also a decent read. I was familiar with the core issues making it a bit easier to absorb the content…except…the larger issue - corruption, incompetence and institutional indifference in the Alzheimer’s ecosystem. If you have any interest in drug development, the process of scientific discovery, Alzheimer’s or good reporting, this is your kind of book. BTW, the first time I listened to speakers discussing the amyloid beta hypothesis, in 2006 or so, I thought it so illogical as to be a fad. I am not a doc or scientist but I can think. You may feel the same after reading this book.
June 24, 2025
Well this was fascinating. If ever I was inclined to “just trust the science,” I’m now dissuaded. What’s difficult is that, lacking a scientific mind, I find it hard to make heads or tails of studies and various interpretations of the studies. My eyes glass over when I see words like “amyloids” and descriptions of western blots. I have to take someone’s word for science-y things, whether it’s a scientist or a journalist or my doctor who sees me for 10 minutes every other year. So while the author of this book makes a compelling case, I looked up some rebuttals of it by various scientists and thought they made some decent points also. Certainty is hard to come by, but reading this was a good reminder not to trust blindly any “expert” and always follow the money. It’s weighty stuff to consider as my parents (and I!) get older and difficult medical decisions may come up sooner or later.
January 1, 2026
This book reads like a tragedy. A fascinating one albeit but a tragedy. I had some familiarity with the bombshell story this author was expanding on, but the academic dishonesty and falsifying of research went much deeper than I could imagine. Slightly repetitive at times but a worthwhile read for sure.
February 10, 2025
A concerning and disconcerting journey down the road of data manipulation and research fraud. Many established names and theories that have thrived in the research field of Alzheimer's for decades are brought into question, shaking the foundation of the status quo. It is inconceivable that where families suffer and hope for a cure, ego's, money and career are bypassing this need. An eye openener, where one can only hope that the damage does not delay the progress made.
June 6, 2025
Such an interesting story, but at time Piller’s writing was confusing and the pacing was off.
February 15, 2025
Corruption is real. Everywhere people are lying and faking their data just for personal advancement.
February 23, 2025
I found this book to be just fine! Interesting and eye opening, but often repetitive, and unfortunately the copy I read had some minor printing errors. In one spot a paragraph was repeated at the end of the chapter. Nothing huge, but distracting enough that I noticed.
I’m disheartened at the image tampering. It’s just not something I would have thought would be possible to get away with for SO long. Especially if results were hard for others to replicate. And it’s frustrating how many afraid patients lives and hopes were just being toyed with. Corruption exists everywhere, and yet it’s still so maddening that it does.
I’m disheartened at the image tampering. It’s just not something I would have thought would be possible to get away with for SO long. Especially if results were hard for others to replicate. And it’s frustrating how many afraid patients lives and hopes were just being toyed with. Corruption exists everywhere, and yet it’s still so maddening that it does.
February 19, 2025
Overall this is a good read and one that shines light on a serious integrity problem with Alzheimer’s research, specifically, and pharmaceutical research, more general. I hope that it prompts changes in practices that ultimately lead to better treatments.
The book is, I think, longer than it needs to be. Using some very loose numbers, the first 50% or so of the book is spent telling the story of how misconduct and fraud were uncovered in the Alzheimer’s research community. It includes the life stories of the main characters, and a few tangents, which really seem more like filler to make the book thick enough. That is followed by about 25% of the book spent with the author thumping his own chest, praising the scientist who did all the technical work for the book, and attacking some of the people who may push back or attack the story (including the scientists who committed the misconduct). If the first part is under logos, then the second part is under pathos. The last 25% or so of the book gives data and statistical figures showing the depth and breadth of the problem caused to progress in Alzheimer’s research by people who published bad data in peer-reviewed journals and then expands a bit to other areas of research.
While a bit longer than it needs to be and also padded with the praise and derision to get ahead of the reputation wars fought in the court of public opinion, this book highlights truly important issues that must be addressed and is worth the read.
The book is, I think, longer than it needs to be. Using some very loose numbers, the first 50% or so of the book is spent telling the story of how misconduct and fraud were uncovered in the Alzheimer’s research community. It includes the life stories of the main characters, and a few tangents, which really seem more like filler to make the book thick enough. That is followed by about 25% of the book spent with the author thumping his own chest, praising the scientist who did all the technical work for the book, and attacking some of the people who may push back or attack the story (including the scientists who committed the misconduct). If the first part is under logos, then the second part is under pathos. The last 25% or so of the book gives data and statistical figures showing the depth and breadth of the problem caused to progress in Alzheimer’s research by people who published bad data in peer-reviewed journals and then expands a bit to other areas of research.
While a bit longer than it needs to be and also padded with the praise and derision to get ahead of the reputation wars fought in the court of public opinion, this book highlights truly important issues that must be addressed and is worth the read.
March 24, 2025
An excellent deep dive into fraud across alzheimers research, scientific publishing and clinical trials. The focus is on alzheimers research but the stories uncovered are important and relevant for any scientfic field. This will probably be one of my top books for 2025.
February 10, 2025
As an avid reader of science, history, and biography I was excited to read this book. It also had the added personal importance of covering a topic to which I’ve devoted my education and plan to continue devoting my career. The book attempts to address a very broad topic, and ends up covering some aspects/stories much better than others. I enjoyed profile of Schrag, anecdotes of affected patients, and well timestamped re-tellings of Piller’s investigative journalism.
I would be remiss if my review didn’t mention the lingering pessimistic view of the field at large this book leaves (see COI above). It is sobering but often equates studies under investigation that may or may not impact findings with other stories of blatant fraud. I’d point to the odd number-dump chapter 21 and a lack of deeper description into the damage done by the “doctored studies” highlighted as the reason my review lost a star. I hope this book helps keep rigor/reproducibility in scientists’ minds without eroding public trust in science. Something only time can tell…
I would be remiss if my review didn’t mention the lingering pessimistic view of the field at large this book leaves (see COI above). It is sobering but often equates studies under investigation that may or may not impact findings with other stories of blatant fraud. I’d point to the odd number-dump chapter 21 and a lack of deeper description into the damage done by the “doctored studies” highlighted as the reason my review lost a star. I hope this book helps keep rigor/reproducibility in scientists’ minds without eroding public trust in science. Something only time can tell…
June 20, 2025
3.5 Ive spent some time reading about medical advancement in the scientific community lately. As Piller quoted in this book, the culture needs to change in order to foster constructive critiques,for the prevention of fraud and threats, and for positive outcomes for scientific integrity. What happens when a med-developing company's product doesn't actually work? No one wants to hear it. Research funds dry, scientists lose work, shareholder prices drop (and investors lose money) and even hope for patients who otherwise don't have any other viable treatments falls through.
February 18, 2025
It is easy to fake test results and takes years to uncover and expose. So, the industry uses these fraudulent reports to back drug trials and the Alzheimer research chases false leads. and losses billions and sets back our understanding by many years.
You will be astonished and challenged if you hold a belief that Alzheimer’s may be caused by the brain’s sticky defence, beta-amyloid, which works against bugs.
There are as many as 6 types of AZ and possibly 36 contributing causes so there will be no one bullet cure or drug. And that is why after hundreds of cure discoveries, none have worked, miost are dangerous and/or terribly dangerous.
This author explains how and why this came abiout but most importantly Piller explains the damage that falsified research has caused.
You will be astonished and challenged if you hold a belief that Alzheimer’s may be caused by the brain’s sticky defence, beta-amyloid, which works against bugs.
There are as many as 6 types of AZ and possibly 36 contributing causes so there will be no one bullet cure or drug. And that is why after hundreds of cure discoveries, none have worked, miost are dangerous and/or terribly dangerous.
This author explains how and why this came abiout but most importantly Piller explains the damage that falsified research has caused.
March 30, 2025
"Over the past few months, investigative journalist Charles Piller has published—eg, in The Daily Mail, The New York Times, and Science—multiple reports of supposed historical fraud in Alzheimer's disease research. Now, in his book Doctored: fraud, arrogance and tragedy in the quest to cure Alzheimer's disease, Piller expands on these claims. A book that discusses why a scientist might consider fraud, and how it could be achieved, would be very welcome, but apart from mention of the difficulties faced by whistleblowers, Piller does not provide such analysis.
Piller suggests that much of the fraud on Alzheimer's disease research has been perpetrated on behalf of an arrogant “cabal” of researchers who support the amyloid hypothesis. As a named member of this cabal, I completely reject this characterisation. Indeed, the reason I was attracted to genetic analysis was precisely because it was agnostic to disease cause. My colleagues and I declared our support for the amyloid hypothesis when the first mutations in the amyloid precursor protein were identified as one cause of Alzheimer's disease, then mutations in the amyloid-metabolising presenilin proteins were identified as another cause. More recently, research has identified that deficiencies in amyloid clearance play a large part in the risk of late-onset disease. Piller barely mentions this work in his book. He details about a dozen cases of likely fraud, but only one is really amyloid related. This case relates to a Nature paper from Sylvain Lesné at the University of Minnesota, in which a particular form of amyloid (Aβ*) was designated as being the neurotoxic form of amyloid. At this stage it is perhaps worth noting that the scientific method is, to some extent, self-correcting. This work was never replicated, although no doubt, several labs lost time—and several millions of dollars were wasted immediately after its publication—in replicative attempts. Discussions at scientific meetings also noted the research with profound scepticism. Bart de Strooper (another “cabal member”) cited the paper in a critical review only. To a large extent, the Lesné paper exemplifies the old way that science dealt with incorrect and unreliable work. In the absence of replication, together with whispers at scientific meetings, these papers used to quietly die. Now they are publicly murdered.
After outlining the various cases of supposed fraudulent research, Piller alleges—really without a logical link—that the Lesné paper and others (which were not amyloid related) led to the unsuccessful quest for Alzheimer's disease drugs. This claim is incorrect for two reasons. The first is that the Lesné paper was merely a side show, discounted by researchers. The second is that Piller's book is published around the same time that unbiased regulatory authorities across the globe have approved two amyloid-lowering drugs—lecanemab and donanemab—for use to slow Alzheimer's disease progression. Rather than quote these regulatory approvals, Piller instead quotes peripheral naysayers for the amyloid hypothesis, who emphasise the rare but serious side-effects of these treatments. The risk–benefit relationships of these drugs are being appropriately discussed by regulators and in public fora. A book by a non-expert is not the correct place for these discussions.
The casual reader may wonder what causes a fraudulent scientist to betray colleagues and why Piller has identified so many cases of research fraud. The question of motive is very difficult to answer: ambition seems the most obvious reason, but a perhaps under-appreciated motive could be an investigator (one would hesitate to call them a scientist) who “knows what the answer is” and simply need data to “prove them right”. I suspect fraud is attributable to a mixture of motives. As to why there have been so many recent cases of fraud, the easy answer is that work pressures have increased. That may indeed be part of the answer, but other factors include the recent availability of image recognition software, which has enabled the detection of fraudulent and duplicated histological and western blot images from years gone by. Yet, many types of fraud are still undetectable, such as data selection for publication. The other possible reason for the current rash of fraud cases is that the fate of whistleblowers has become marginally better—although it is still not good.
Scientific progress depends on honesty: the work in a scientific paper must be reported honestly so that others can draw the correct conclusions when they read it and clinical decisions can be made based on the reported data. Science also requires peer-reviewed publications. As these cases illustrate, however, the peer review process can be cheated by fraud, but it is still better than unreviewed assertions which, I am afraid, Piller's book is full of. It is both surprising and disappointing that the book comes out just as the first imperfect treatments for Alzheimer's disease are entering clinical practice. I sincerely hope the book and its attendant publicity do not dissuade people who might benefit from an amyloid-lowering drug to decide not to seek help. My biggest disappointment, however, is that this work was first published with the imprimatur of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science in an unrefereed format, then was quoted by the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr, in Senate hearings." Prof. Sir. J.Hardy
Piller suggests that much of the fraud on Alzheimer's disease research has been perpetrated on behalf of an arrogant “cabal” of researchers who support the amyloid hypothesis. As a named member of this cabal, I completely reject this characterisation. Indeed, the reason I was attracted to genetic analysis was precisely because it was agnostic to disease cause. My colleagues and I declared our support for the amyloid hypothesis when the first mutations in the amyloid precursor protein were identified as one cause of Alzheimer's disease, then mutations in the amyloid-metabolising presenilin proteins were identified as another cause. More recently, research has identified that deficiencies in amyloid clearance play a large part in the risk of late-onset disease. Piller barely mentions this work in his book. He details about a dozen cases of likely fraud, but only one is really amyloid related. This case relates to a Nature paper from Sylvain Lesné at the University of Minnesota, in which a particular form of amyloid (Aβ*) was designated as being the neurotoxic form of amyloid. At this stage it is perhaps worth noting that the scientific method is, to some extent, self-correcting. This work was never replicated, although no doubt, several labs lost time—and several millions of dollars were wasted immediately after its publication—in replicative attempts. Discussions at scientific meetings also noted the research with profound scepticism. Bart de Strooper (another “cabal member”) cited the paper in a critical review only. To a large extent, the Lesné paper exemplifies the old way that science dealt with incorrect and unreliable work. In the absence of replication, together with whispers at scientific meetings, these papers used to quietly die. Now they are publicly murdered.
After outlining the various cases of supposed fraudulent research, Piller alleges—really without a logical link—that the Lesné paper and others (which were not amyloid related) led to the unsuccessful quest for Alzheimer's disease drugs. This claim is incorrect for two reasons. The first is that the Lesné paper was merely a side show, discounted by researchers. The second is that Piller's book is published around the same time that unbiased regulatory authorities across the globe have approved two amyloid-lowering drugs—lecanemab and donanemab—for use to slow Alzheimer's disease progression. Rather than quote these regulatory approvals, Piller instead quotes peripheral naysayers for the amyloid hypothesis, who emphasise the rare but serious side-effects of these treatments. The risk–benefit relationships of these drugs are being appropriately discussed by regulators and in public fora. A book by a non-expert is not the correct place for these discussions.
The casual reader may wonder what causes a fraudulent scientist to betray colleagues and why Piller has identified so many cases of research fraud. The question of motive is very difficult to answer: ambition seems the most obvious reason, but a perhaps under-appreciated motive could be an investigator (one would hesitate to call them a scientist) who “knows what the answer is” and simply need data to “prove them right”. I suspect fraud is attributable to a mixture of motives. As to why there have been so many recent cases of fraud, the easy answer is that work pressures have increased. That may indeed be part of the answer, but other factors include the recent availability of image recognition software, which has enabled the detection of fraudulent and duplicated histological and western blot images from years gone by. Yet, many types of fraud are still undetectable, such as data selection for publication. The other possible reason for the current rash of fraud cases is that the fate of whistleblowers has become marginally better—although it is still not good.
Scientific progress depends on honesty: the work in a scientific paper must be reported honestly so that others can draw the correct conclusions when they read it and clinical decisions can be made based on the reported data. Science also requires peer-reviewed publications. As these cases illustrate, however, the peer review process can be cheated by fraud, but it is still better than unreviewed assertions which, I am afraid, Piller's book is full of. It is both surprising and disappointing that the book comes out just as the first imperfect treatments for Alzheimer's disease are entering clinical practice. I sincerely hope the book and its attendant publicity do not dissuade people who might benefit from an amyloid-lowering drug to decide not to seek help. My biggest disappointment, however, is that this work was first published with the imprimatur of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science in an unrefereed format, then was quoted by the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr, in Senate hearings." Prof. Sir. J.Hardy
April 12, 2025
I tried, but this book was so dang boring. The writing style did not appeal to me at all. Was hoping for something more akin to the podcast Dr. Death or the medical version of The Smartest Guys in the Room.
June 5, 2025
Very repetitive. Poorly edited. Feel like it’s padded to make a magazine article into a book. There’s a story here but it gets weighed down by this.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews