Business
Is there a cure for Alzheimer’s Disease?
The Alzheimer’s Lie That Made Big Pharma Billions
The collapse of the Amyloid theory
Remember Aduhelm? It was Biogen’s $56,000/year Alzheimer’s drug that didn’t even work.
Worse, it caused brain swelling, brain bleeding, and sudden falls in patients—and the FDA approved it anyway.
But the truth is, you don’t need deep pockets to treat Alzheimer’s. You just need to look at what Big Pharma can’t monetize.
This report exposes the real causes behind Alzheimer’s—and the cheap treatment options you should explore instead.
The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
This information comes from the work of medical researcher A Midwestern Doctor. For all the sources and details, read the full report below.
Why Isn’t There a Cure for Alzheimer’s Disease?
Modern medicine is addicted to the biochemical model of disease because it creates a pipeline for expensive, patentable drugs, and it often leaves patients and their families in the dark, rather than empowered and in control.
It’s not about finding root causes. It’s about finding something you can bill for.
That’s why the industry has spent decades treating Alzheimer’s like a “chemical imbalance” in the brain caused by amyloid plaques—even though hundreds of trials targeting amyloid have failed.
The more the theory collapsed, the harder the system doubled down. Just like cholesterol and heart disease, the medical machine kept pushing the failed model long after it broke.
The amyloid hypothesis was unstoppable. Billions poured in. Researchers who questioned it were pushed to the margins.
Critics called it “amyloid mafia” because no alternative view got funded or even considered.
Meanwhile, real scientists were finding deeper drivers of Alzheimer’s. Things like chronic inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, and mitochondrial collapse.
But these discoveries never gained traction because they didn’t lead to blockbuster drugs.
The entire field locked onto a theory that would never cure the disease but could generate infinite research dollars.
By 2006, the amyloid hypothesis was in trouble. The failed trials and contradictory evidence began piling up and could no longer be ignored. So the medical establishment pivoted instead of admitting any error.
They claimed the real problem was a toxic oligomer called Aβ*56.
An article in Nature declared that they found the smoking gun. It became one of the most cited Alzheimer’s studies ever. The authors became stars. Pharma reinvested billions chasing a new chemical villain.
The field was saved! But there was no truth here, just a convenient new molecule used to justify research funding.
The entire foundation of modern Alzheimer’s research rested on one “blockbuster discovery.” But what if the discovery never existed?
It was a scandal of epic proportions.
A neuroscientist reviewing experimental drug data in 2021 noticed suspicious Western blots. When he looked a little deeper, he found multiple Alzheimer’s papers filled with manipulated images, all traced back to the same author of the famous 2006 study.
So he kept digging. And what he uncovered was stunning!
At least 20 fraudulent papers tied to this researcher, 10 directly involving the molecule the entire amyloid theory now depended on.
The field’s “master proof” was built on completely fabricated data.
Let that sink in.
The NIH was informed in early 2022. And guess what?
They did nothing about it.
Actually, they did worse than nothing—they gave the suspect researcher a $764,792 grant a few months later.
It wasn’t until 2024 that the paper was finally retracted, and even then the authors insisted the fraud didn’t change their conclusions.
Billions of dollars and two decades of research fueled by manipulated images—and the establishment still defended the theory today.
What a joke.
Why are they protecting a disproven model? Why would they continue to push a hypothesis built on doctored data?
Because amyloid research is worth hundreds of billions of dollars—across drugs, trials, funding, and Medicare reimbursements. Seven million Alzheimer’s patients represent an enormous revenue stream.
And with no cure, they’re set to increase customers as people age.
If the amyloid theory collapses, so does the entire financial architecture tied to it. So the system pushes forward—regardless of fraud, failure, or human cost.
And the average person continues to trust this system.
Big Pharma eventually produced monoclonal antibodies that cleared amyloid from the brain. The FDA called it a breakthrough. The investors celebrated. News headlines said there was hope.
Except there was a problem. A big problem. Removing amyloid didn’t actually help anyone.
The first drug, Aduhelm, didn’t improve cognition. At all.
In fact, an FDA advisory panel voted 10–0 against approval, calling it a disaster.
But the FDA approved it anyway. Three advisors resigned in protest, calling it the worst drug decision in modern history!
Why was it so bad? Just take a look at these side effects:
• Brain swelling
• Brain bleeding
• Migraines
• Delirium
• Sudden falls
• Dangerous infusion reactions
Up to 41% of patients experienced serious brain complications.
And it costs a sickening $56,000 per year.
Congress actually launched an investigation. But the FDA still greenlit it—and even quietly approved the next two monoclonals, despite similarly weak results and similarly high risk.
Because it’s not about a cure.
The new drugs caused brain bleeding… but that wasn’t even the most disturbing part.
The incentives behind the approval process will shock you. Don’t miss the full report from A Midwestern Doctor.
Those second and third drugs weren’t much better.
They still caused massive brain swelling and bleeding, just at slightly lower percentages.
And their “benefits” were so tiny—slowing decline by a fraction of a point on a scale where patients need 1–2 points for them and their families to notice anything.
Despite aggressive marketing and FDA cheerleading, the market ultimately rejected these drugs. Aduhelm earned only $5 million before it was pulled. The replacements sold modestly but never lived up to the hype.
Why? Because people quickly realized they didn’t work. Hopeful families didn’t see any improvement. Doctors didn’t either. The risks outweighed the rewards, and thankfully people started to notice.
And yet the system keeps pushing the same model—even as evidence mounts that amyloid might be protective, not harmful.
You read that right. Amyloid may actually be protective.
One of the few successful Alzheimer’s protocols, RECODE, treats amyloid as the brain’s attempt to shield itself from metabolic and inflammatory damage. So removing it may worsen the underlying disease.
This helps explain why amyloid-clearing drugs cause so much harm.
They very well may be ripping off the brain’s band-aids while exposing and ignoring the deeper wounds.
Therapies that do help (and don’t cost an arm and a leg) remain completely ignored.
A trial using MCTs from coconut oil showed 80% of patients improved or stabilized over six months of use. That’s better than any amyloid drug in existence.
Patients around the world have reported similar benefits simply from adding coconut oil to their routine! No side effects. No brain bleeds. And of course, no $30,000 price tag.
The Alzheimer’s story is really a story about American medicine. We don’t have a cure not because the disease is too complex, but because the system isn’t designed to cure anything.
It’s designed to manage your symptoms while profiting off of them.
Until we move away from profit-first frameworks and toward root-cause medicine, we’ll continue to lose the war on chronic disease.
Thankfully, we’re closer now than ever before to making this necessary shift.
If you or someone you love is facing cognitive decline, this report is essential reading. It explains the entire collapse of the amyloid model, the fraud no one wants to talk about, the real mechanisms behind Alzheimer’s, and the natural therapies that actually help.
This thread barely scratches the surface—the full article is one of the most important things you’ll ever read about Alzheimer’s.
Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor.
Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
Business
Taxpayers Federation calls on politicians to reject funding for new Ottawa Senators arena
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the federal, Ontario and municipal governments to publicly reject subsidizing a new arena for the Ottawa Senators.
“Politicians need to stand up for taxpayers and tell the Ottawa Senators’ lobbyists NO,” said Noah Jarvis, CTF Ontario Director. “Prime Minister Mark Carney, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe all need to publicly reject giving taxpayers’ money to the owners of the Ottawa Senators.”
The Ottawa Citizen recently reported that “the Ottawa Senators have a team off the ice lobbying federal and provincial governments for funds to help pay the hefty price tag for a new arena.”
The Ottawa Senators said they don’t intend on asking the city of Ottawa for taxpayer dollars. However, the Ottawa Citizen reported that “it’s believed Senators’ owner Michael Andlauer would like a similar structure to the [Calgary] arena deal.” The Calgary arena deal included municipal subsidies.
As of December 2024, the Ottawa Senators were worth just under $1.2 billion, according to Forbes.
Meanwhile, both the federal and Ontario governments are deep in debt. The federal debt will reach $1.35 trillion by the end of the year. The Ontario government is $459 billion in debt. The city of Ottawa is proposing a 3.75 per cent property tax increase in 2026.
“Governments are up to their eyeballs in debt and taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to fund a brand-new fancy arena for a professional sports team,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “If the owners of the Ottawa Senators want to build a fancy new arena, then they should be forced to fund it with ticket sales not tax hikes.”
Business
Albertans give most on average but Canadian generosity hits lowest point in 20 years
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
The number of Canadians donating to charity—as a percentage of all tax filers—is at the lowest point in 20 years, finds a new study published by the
Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“The holiday season is a time to reflect on charitable giving, and the data shows Canadians are consistently less charitable every year, which means charities face greater challenges to secure resources to help those in need,” said Jake Fuss, director of Fiscal Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Generosity in Canada: The 2025 Generosity Index.
The study finds that the percentage of Canadian tax filers donating to charity during the 2023 tax year—just 16.8 per cent—is the lowest proportion of Canadians donating since at least 2003. Canadians’ generosity peaked at 25.4 per cent of tax-filers donating in 2004, before declining in subsequent years.
Nationally, the total amount donated to charity by Canadian tax filers has also fallen from 0.55 per cent of income in 2013 to 0.52 per cent of income in 2023.
The study finds that Manitoba had the highest percentage of tax filers that donated to charity among the provinces (18.7 per cent) during the 2023 tax year while New Brunswick had the lowest (14.4 per cent).
Likewise, Manitoba also donated the highest percentage of its aggregate income to charity among the provinces (0.71 per cent) while Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador donated the lowest (both 0.27 per cent).
“A smaller proportion of Canadians are donating to registered charities than what we saw in previous decades, and those who are donating are donating less,” said Fuss.
“This decline in generosity in Canada undoubtedly limits the ability of Canadian charities to improve the quality of life in their communities and beyond,” said Grady Munro, policy analyst and co-author.
Generosity of Canadian provinces and territories
Ranking (2025) % of tax filers who claiming donations Average of all charitable donations % of aggregate income donated
Manitoba 18.7 $2,855 0.71
Ontario 17.2 $2,816 0.58
Quebec 17.1 $1,194 0.27
Alberta 17.0 $3,622 0.68
Prince Edward Island 16.6 $1,936 0.45
Saskatchewan 16.4 $2,597 0.52
British Columbia 15.9 $3,299 0.61
Nova Scotia 15.3 $1,893 0.40
Newfoundland and Labrador 15.0 $1,333 0.27
New Brunswick 14.4 $2,076 0.44
Yukon 14.1 $2,180 0.27
Northwest Territories 10.2 $2,540 0.20
Nunavut 5.1 $2,884 0.15
NOTE: Table based on 2023 tax year, the most recent year of comparable data in Canada
Generosity in Canada: The 2025 Generosity Index
- Manitoba had the highest percentage of tax filers that donated to charity among the provinces (18.7%) during the 2023 tax year while New Brunswick had the lowest (14.4%).
- Manitoba also donated the highest percentage of its aggregate income to charity among the provinces (0.71%) while Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador donated the lowest (both 0.27%).
- Nationally, the percentage of Canadian tax filers donating to charity has fallen over the last decade from 21.9% in 2013 to 16.8% in 2023.
- The percentage of aggregate income donated to charity by Canadian tax filers has also decreased from 0.55% in 2013 to 0.52% in 2023.
- This decline in generosity in Canada undoubtedly limits the ability of Canadian charities to improve the quality of life in their communities and beyond.
-
Health2 days agoUS podcaster Glenn Beck extends a lifeline to a Saskatchewan woman waiting for MAiD
-
Automotive1 day agoThe $50 Billion Question: EVs Never Delivered What Ottawa Promised
-
Local Business23 hours agoRed Deer Downtown Business Association to Wind Down Operations
-
C2C Journal1 day agoWisdom of Our Elders: The Contempt for Memory in Canadian Indigenous Policy
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoConservative MP calls on religious leaders to oppose Liberal plan to criminalize quoting Scripture
-
Alberta24 hours agoAlberta introducing three “all-season resort areas” to provide more summer activities in Alberta’s mountain parks
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoLiberals gain support for ‘hate speech’ bill targeting Bible passages against homosexuality
-
International23 hours agoTrump admin wants to help Canadian woman rethink euthanasia, Glenn Beck says














