Alzheimer's Can Now Be Diagnosed 10 Years Before Symptoms. Who Benefits?

Big Pharma has followed the same old game plan: finances a study, gets it published & hyped, produces a drug to treat, and rakes in the money.

by Heidi Stevenson

11 August 2010

A new test that promises to identify people developing Alzheimer's disease ten years or more before the first symptoms will soon be available to the public, according to a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)⁽¹⁾. An editorial that accompanies the article presents it as unconditionally positive. Sadly, close examination shows that is not the case.

The hype claims that the study shows the test provides 100% accuracy in identifying who will develop Alzheimer's dementia within ten years. However, that is not quite what it demonstrated. Rather, the study showed who, among people who are already suffering from significant memory loss, will develop the particular type of dementia called Alzheimer's.

According to the New York Times⁽²⁾, Dr. Steven DeKosky, Dean of the University of Virginia medical school, exclaimed, "This is what everyone is looking for, the bull's-eye of perfect predictive accuracy." Washington University's Professor of Neurology, Dr. John Morris, enthused that the study, "establishes that there is a signature of Alzheimer’s and that it means something. It is very powerful."

The Study

The new Alzheimer's test is actually a composite of three existing tests: fluid–derived β-amyloid protein 1-42, total tau protein, and phosphorylated tau_181P protein concentrations. All of the tests are currently available, and all utilize samples of cerebrospinal fluid. These samples require that the membranes that surround the central nervous system, the meninges, be punctured to retrieve cerebrospinal fluid in a procedure that is commonly called a spinal tap.

The accompanying JAMA editorial states:

Gazing into the future when there are neuroprotective medications for Alzheimer's disease, we can envision a recommendation that cerebrospinal fluid analyses be implemented as a screening test to identify clinically healthy individuals at risk for mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. The information gained would enable early application of treatments to delay onset of symptoms or slow progression of cognitive impairments.

Who Financed the Study?

That's all well and good, but let's take a look at who financed the study: the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). That sounds harmless enough—until you look further to see who funds ADNI. Then, you find nearly every major Big Pharma corporation: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Elan Corporation, Genentech, GE Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Innogenetics, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly & Co, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, Synarc, and Wyeth.

It doesn't take rocket science to recognize that these pharmaceutical and medical equipment corporations didn't fund the study for altruistic reasons. And it doesn't take rocket science to realize that the goal will be to push spinal taps on large numbers of people so that they can then be targeted for "preventative" drugs on which Big Pharma can make yet another fortune.

Adding to the implication that these tests are safe, the JAMA editorial says:

To date, cerebrospinal fluid analyses have not been a routine component of assessment and care for patients with cognitive impairments and suspected Alzheimer's disease in the United States. There is now ample evidence that these measurements have value; physicians need to formulate when and how to incorporate cerebrospinal fluid measurements into their practice.

They aren't suggesting caution; they're saying that this study cinches the value of these spinal tap tests, and that that only thing left to consider is exactly how and when to use them.

Who Benefits?

The push is already on to make this spinal puncture test routine—even though the study has not been duplicated and its sponsor clearly has a strong financial interest in the results.

Currently, there are no drugs that can prevent Alzheimer's disease. There are, though, about 90 drugs being tested to see if they can slow or stop its progression. Naturally, if a study can appear to document that a drug does this, then the manufacturer will have a blockbuster. If a test exists that can predict years in advance who will develop Alzheimer's, then the value of that drug could be multiplied many times over.

Prevention of Disease by Ingesting Chemicals?

Let's take a look at how successful Big Pharma has been in its prevention of diseases based on tests that presume to predict. Bisphosphonates are a good example. The disease of osteopenia, pre-osteoporosis, was invented to herd masses of women into the drug pipeline for prevention of a disease they didn't have. The result was disastrous. Bisphosphonates can cause the disease they're supposed to prevent, and do even worse damage than the disease itself. But Big Pharma raked in piles of cash by selling those drugs.

The concept that a pharmaceutical drug can prevent a disease is absurd on its face. It implies that a non-biological chemical is a missing substance that's required to stop a process of deterioration and decompensation. It implies that a lifetime of damage can be fixed simply by popping a pill. It's a pipe dream fostered by Big Pharma and Big Medicine, and all-too-often accepted by people hoping for a quick fix.

Test Results Doom the Patient?

It has not been shown that someone with particular markers in the cerebrospinal fluid will inevitably develop Alzheimer's. The existing study has shown only that people who already suffer from significant memory loss can be identifed, and no effort was made to determine whether non-drug methods could be used to prevent its development.

The fact is that several environmental and lifestyle factors can be changed to prevent or delay Alzheimer's onset, including smoking, obesity, diabetes, inadequate sleep, sedentary lifestyle, toxic insults to the brain, and stress. The suggestion that someone without symptoms can be identified, with 100% accuracy, as being doomed to develop Alzheimer's is nothing short of bunk.

Test Risks?

Aside from the flawed concepts of certainty in predicting disease and preventing it through drugs, the test itself carries significant risks. The procedure involves puncturing the central nervous system in the lumbar (lower back) area with a needle and withdrawing a sample of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

The best known risk of a spinal tap is a spinal headache. They're the result of lack of cushioning around the brain from loss of CSF. They're particularly painful, and in severe cases can be life-threatening.

Infection can be introduced if the needle and area around the puncture are not carefully sterilized. Though rare, such an infection is very severe, because it can invade the central nervous system.

Bleeding into the CSF can be devastating, resulting in the permanent, painful, and debilitating disease called arachnoiditis.

Yet Another Big Pharma Ploy

Yet again, Big Pharma is following the same old gameplan. It finances a study that's designed to show what they want. The results are published and spun in a medical journal, and the media takes up the cause by hyping it as the be-all and end-all for resolving a fearful disease. The study itself is well-timed to coincide with new drugs that will be sold based on its results.

Doctors within the system, often financed by Big Pharma, join in the hype. Potential patients—defined as people who are targeted to take Big Pharma's drugs—are manipulated with a double whammy of fear of a disease coupled with hope for its prevention or cure. So the ultimate victims of the risks in both the tests and drugs are conned into advocating, and even demanding, that the tests and drugs be approved and provided.

Big Pharma and doctors collect the profits, until eventually enough people have been harmed that it's no longer possible to hide the damage. Then, the victims are forgotten as the next big drug or test or treatment is chased and the cycle begins anew.

What do you think? Click here to comment!