June 19, 2025
Walter Cronkite is Dead
By Dale Bredesen, M.D., Chief Science Officer for Apollo Health
When I was a boy, Walter Cronkite was known as “the most trusted man in America.” He was the most well-known news anchor, reporting on important events in our country and the world, from the JFK assassination to the Vietnam War to the first moon landing. A news icon, he was known for his impartiality and equanimity.
Apparently, Walter Cronkite is dead, both literally and figuratively, and his passing has taught me an important lesson: about eight months ago, a reporter contacted me, claiming that she wanted to do a story for the New York Times about whether it is truly possible to reverse cognitive decline. I told her that we have demonstrated that many times, and published data to prove that cognitive decline can indeed be reversed, not in every single person, of course, but in many, and in our published proof-of-concept trial, 84% showed improvement.
I asked her if she had been funded by the pharmaceutical industry to write a critical article about the precision medicine approach we pioneered in 2014 and have published repeatedly since then (and which has, not surprisingly, led to pushback from those supported by Pharma). She told me she was not, and that she was truly interested in doing a deep dive to get the truth about the reversal of cognitive decline.
I said I’d do an interview with her if she would talk to some of the patients and practitioners who had witnessed firsthand the cognitive improvements we have published, and she agreed. She talked to about a dozen patients and practitioners, as well as others involved, and every one of those with whom she talked was able to validate what we have published. I also sent her many of our published papers, filled her in on details, and sent her the interim data from our randomized controlled trial, which demonstrate unequivocally that those treated with the standard of care for Alzheimer’s continue to decline (as has been shown many times before), whereas those treated with a personalized, precision medicine protocol like ReCODE improve. I also sent her our published paper showing examples of sustained improvement for over a decade, something that is unprecedented.
And after all, is it really so surprising that, when there is no effective standard treatment for a poorly understood disease like Alzheimer’s, improved results are achieved by identifying what is actually causing the problem, then addressing those factors? Why is that so hard to believe? Especially when we have evidence from quantitative cognitive tests, MRI volumetrics, symptom trackers, biomarkers, and electrophysiology that indeed, cognitive improvement occurs frequently, especially in those who do not wait until the late stages of dementia.
Despite the eight months of back-and-forth emails, the many interviews with successful patients and practitioners, the published data, and the new data from our randomized controlled trial, on May 25, the front page of the New York Times criticized our results as “without proof” and “expensive,” disregarding all of the interviews and data supplied to the reporter.
Let’s start with the reporter’s claim of no proof; here is the proof:
- As noted above, the ongoing randomized controlled trial at six sites, which will be completed in October, has undergone an interim analysis that already shows a statistically significant improvement in cognition, both in memory and in overall cognitive index.
- Two published proof-of-concept trials showed cognitive improvement in 84% of patients (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3233/JAD-215707 ) and 74% of patients (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3233/JAD-230004 ).
- MRI volumetric improvement has been demonstrated.
- qEEG improvements have been documented.
- Evoked response improvements (e.g., p300b) have been documented.
- P-tau 217 improvement has been demonstrated in the ongoing trial.
- Abeta 42:40 ratio improvements have been observed.
- Objective symptomatic improvements, such as the return of the ability to read or type or use a computer, have been observed.
- Physicians who have been involved in Alzheimer’s trials point out that they have not seen improvements like this previously.
- Patients and families note clear and sustained improvements.
- Sustained improvements in cognition for over a decade have been documented (https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/12/8/1776).
In 1948, Dr. Dana Farber was faced with a similar situation — another disease with no effective treatment — and his report of 16 children with leukemia treated with aminopterin in an uncontrolled study described 10 temporary remissions. Although the remissions were temporary and the study uncontrolled, the outcomes were nonetheless better than anything seen previously — just as ours have been — and these led to what is now a very effective treatment for childhood leukemia. We have far more proof than what was provided in his original paper.
And what about the claim of “expensive”? It is actually the least expensive alternative: the current treatment with an anti-amyloid antibody costs about $50,000 per year. However, it does not bring about cognitive improvement; it just slows decline modestly (about 27%), while its side effects include brain microhemorrhage, brain swelling, and, in some cases, death.
The other alternative is assisted living, which costs about $100,000 per year, and typically hastens decline. Therefore, the protocol we developed is much less expensive and yields far better outcomes.
I wondered why the reporter had demonstrated such a reckless disregard for the truth. She knew beyond question that she was lying in her report, and aren’t investigative reporters supposed to get to the truth? It has turned out that she was indeed supported by Pharma, just not directly — the financial support was indirect, through a grant from groups that are either themselves supported by Pharma and/or are engaged in their own competitive Alzheimer’s research. Was the goal from the start to reduce competition from “alternative therapies” for cognitive decline, even if — actually, especially if — those therapies are more effective than the standard of care?
And of course, the optimal therapeutic approach to cognitive decline is likely to combine a personalized, precision medicine protocol with targeted pharmaceuticals, but the pharma targets must be improved—ripping amyloid out of blood vessels and brain tissue with an antibody has simply not worked. In fact, we now have a very exciting drug candidate that negates the risk of ApoE4, and I look forward to combining this with our protocol in a clinical trial. Therefore, instead of simply denying the published results, it behooves us all to move on to this next level of treatment, so that we can continue to improve outcomes.
Meanwhile, the reporter’s reckless disregard for the truth has made it clear that there is an ongoing war — Pharma will continue to pour money into “expert” op-eds, fellowships, meetings, and public relations, in order to marginalize and disgrace any threat to drug sales, any alternative approach. In such a war, to protect those in need of therapeutic advances, there is a dire need for an accurate, trusted, impartial journalist, one like Walter Cronkite. But alas, Walter Cronkite is dead.
May 22, 2025•From Dr. Bredesen, News
Setting the Record Straight: Yes, Cognitive Decline Can Be Reversed
