Doctored

Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer's

De: Charles Piller

Narrado por: Lyle Blaker

An Economist Best Book of 2025 So Far

For fans of Empire of Pain and Dopesick, a “gripping story of medical groupthink and warped incentives” (The Economist) that follows 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.

In this “riveting must-read master class in science journalism” (Gary Taubes, author of Rethinking Diabetes), 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 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. Piller “masterfully unfolds an epic tale of astounding fraud, scientific egos run amok, and steely heroism in the pursuit of truth, creating both a page-turner and a seminal account of deceit that will long be remembered alongside Theranos and Enron as a scandal for the ages” (Katherine Eban, author of Bottle of Lies).

©2025 Charles Piller (P)2025 Simon & Schuster Audio

Rampant fraudulent research

Lots of details but factual info. Frightening FDA collusion complicit. Oversight committees can only catch so much and lead researchers control the fate of their underlings future.

Misconduct is the antithesis of science

I’m writing this 5star review because the only review is an idiotic 1star that to me doesn’t seem like it’s from someone who read the book. This isn’t a book about cutting edge Alzheimer’s research, it doesn’t give you a “view” on what the facts are behind Alzheimer’s, it just calls out rampant and horrifying misconduct. So maybe the amyloid hypothesis is perfectly correct, but the bulk of the science it’s currently built off is falsified and corrupt and worse than worthless, it’s active dishonesty via data manipulation and more which isn’t just bad science, it the antithesis of science. So the book really isn’t offering a perspective on the causes of Alzheimer’s etc. it’s just calling out the abominable conduct of a shocking number of big names in the field. Anyone acting like manipulating the data you draw conclusions from isn’t a big deal is not only not a scientist, they are an idiot. Sorry 1 star reviewer, I think you are maybe a bit dumb.

Biomedical fraud. What a great read!

As one who grew up believing in medical and biomedical science, this book was an eye-opener, to say the least. Well researched, I couldn't stop listening to this book. It not only painted a depressing picture of some horrendous fraud in Alzheimers research, it also showed how many ways the fraud can be done.

While depressing, it's also inspiring showing how many real, ethical, scientists there are and how these sleuths were able to uncover fraudulent research (though it also shows how difficult it is to get other people to accept and act on it).

Great book!

Extremely thorough work

Alzheimer’s runs in my family. I would like to understand what is going on in research and this book is one of my sources. My takeaway is that most drugs/trials are not effective and too many errors are being made.

Accessible narrative covering Piller’s investigative journalism into AD research

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…

A one-sided view of the Alzheimer’s field

As an Alzheimer’s researcher I found this very biased and dismissive of the great strides that have been made in our field. Misconduct must always be called out and addressed fully, and for that Mr Piller is to be credited. But beyond that, the book tells a semi-fictional story of our research field.

don't trust this book

This author is out of his depth. He is a journalist seeking a villain for a good story, and importantly, not a scientist or a physician. Yes, scientific fraud exists, is deplorable, and should be prosecuted. But he is attributing greater impact to these cases of fraud than truly exists - these papers were not foundational to the amyloid hypothesis and were met with skepticism anyway when their results could not be replicated by other labs. He is ruining adjacent honest careers to make a name and a buck. The tone of righteous indignation and moral superiority (of both the book and the reader) is unrelenting and tiresome. The arrogance and self-importance are all his.

A biased accounting of scientific bias

A rambling, somewhat self-aggrandizing narrative characterized by hyperbolic “gotcha” statements does not make for good investigative journalism. While the scientific bias related to the amyloid hypothesis exists, this account is more about creating fear and suspicion of the science of Alzheimer’s disease. This is perhaps in the Mount Rushmore of complex diseases and science moves slowly. Scientists are not made equal and there are always rotten apples in any field. Editorial and peer review processes are not perfect as exemplified by this book.