Relying on THIS to diagnose Alzheimer’s is a BIG mistake

It’s no secret that there are some ways to know if your health is really in danger.  

These signals—some are called biomarkers—can be everyday health issues that most of us encounter at our yearly checkups…  

High blood pressure is an indicator of heart disease risk…. 

Hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) assesses long-term blood sugar control…  

And at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), when I was a young researcher there in the mid-1980s, they started pushing the use of exotic biomarkers, like prostate specific antigen (PSA), which really didn’t pan out. (But that hasn’t stopped them from using—and relying—on these less-than-impressive markers. Even though many of them never made the cut as a useful clinical marker. If only they had used simple biomarkers for inflammation to assess cancer risk, as well heart disease, and other chronic disorders.) 

Of course, these biomarkers are far from perfect.  

And when it comes to diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia…they’re downright FLAWED.  

The flawed “biomarker” of AD 

Many mainstream medical doctors rely heavily on detecting the presence of a biomarker called amyloid plaque. (And a new blood test is on the horizon.)

But as I explained earlier this month, amyloid, at best, seems to be an incidental or inconsequential side effect of aging—in some people. It’s certainly NOT the cause of dementia by any scientific description of “cause-and-effect.”  

According to Dr. Jason Karlawish, a highly respected expert in the field, mainstream doctors don’t have any effective solutions for AD. So, just relying on this flawed biomarker stigmatizes patients and their condition.  

Dr. Karlawish is the co-director of the memory center at the University of Pennsylvania (my alma mater). His name may sound familiar to you, as he recently resigned (along with two other experts, including one of my former students from Penn) from the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) independent advisory panel over the agency’s disgraceful approval of the AD drug aducanumab. He’s also the author of a book entitled, The Problem of Alzheimer’s: How Science, Culture and Politics Turned a Rare Disease Into a Crisis and What We Can Do About It. 

I certainly agree with Dr. Karlawish that using the presence of amyloid as a biomarker is ineffective. Especially because there’s already a huge stigma surrounding people who develop AD.  

I mean, just think about how some people were quick to stigmatize President Ronald Reagan after his diagnosis was made (well after he had left the White House)…  

Stigma still surrounds Reagan’s time in office, despite lack of evidence 

In a recent interview, Dr. Karlawish recounted a story about Reagan’s former Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Walter Annenberg. Apparently, after Reagan’s condition became public, Annenberg said that he preferred to remember Reagan as a vigorous fellow. And that he didn’t want to see the former President anymore because he was just “out of it.”  

Of course, we know with a good bit of certainty that Reagan did not suffer from AD while serving in the White House.  

In fact, after President Reagan went public with his diagnosis, historians, the press, political rivals, physicians, and anyone with a grudge went back through Reagan’s time in office with a fine-toothed comb—looking for any sign of failing cognitive function.  

I also had extensive discussions with the Director of the Reagan Presidential Library in California, who had thoroughly researched the issue, during the time I led the effort with members of the U.S. Congress to create medical guidelines under the 25th Amendment on Presidential Disability. He told me they had even performed a “media analysis,” looking for any news reports linking Reagan to failing mental capacity during the 1980s.  

None of these investigations have ever found a shred of evidence to suggest Reagan suffered from any cognitive decline while in office. Yet, as Dr. Karlawish pointed out, the stigma still remains. 

Safe, natural approaches backed by years of research  

My point here today is this: Instead of relying on the faulty, useless amyloid biomarker—which just doesn’t prove anything and, sadly, just creates a stigma—how about we use simple, sensible approaches to help assess cognitive health in older people?  

For instance, declining financial literacy or sense of smell may actually indicate a problem. And when that occurs, we should be recommending safe, science-backed, natural options for treating AD instead.

Indeed, seven years ago, researchers with UCLA published groundbreaking clinical research showing that AD and dementia could be reversed in nine out of 10 people who follow a dozen simple lifestyle steps. Even though this research began in earnest years ago, most physicians still don’t know about it.   

That’s why I urge you to become your own advocate and check out myComplete Alzheimer’s Fighting Protocol. This innovative learning tool includes all of the natural steps and nutritional advice used to fight and reverse AD, as outlined in the original UCLA protocol.   

Plus, it contains important, additional steps, which I added based on 40 years of my own, personal research. Including specific recommendations for supplementing with berberine, folic acid, grape extract, lutein, thiamine, turmeric, and vitamins B6 and B12. To learn more about this comprehensive protocol, or to enroll today,click here now.  


“A Revolution Is Underway in Alzheimer’s, and It’s Not All Good.” MedPage Today, 4/2/21. (