David Bridges
The New York Times published an extensive interview this morning featuring columnist Ross Douthat and renowned venture capitalist and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel. This interview found its home in the opinion section for a reason; it delves into provocative and contentious ideas that merit discussion.
Thiel, known for his support of Donald Trump and connections with influential figures like Vice President JD Vance, was allowed to express his views on a range of topics through an hour-long series of questions that seemed almost too easy. He raised eyebrow-raising inquiries such as whether Greta Thunberg could be considered the literal antichrist and if the primary ideological forces in Europe consist of environmentalism, Islamic Shariah law, and a Chinese Communist agenda. He even questioned whether artificial intelligence is “woke” enough to accompany Elon Musk to Mars. One wonders if the so-called “just asking questions” style of journalism could benefit from adding “what on earth are you talking about?” to their list of inquiries.
Many of Thiel’s claims appear to stem from his personal beliefs rather than grounded facts, although one assertion stood out in their conversation. Early in the discussion, Peter made a remarkable statement [emphasis ours]:
If we look at biotech, something like dementia and Alzheimer’s disease — we’ve made zero progress in 40 to 50 years. People are completely stuck on beta amyloids. It’s obviously not working. It’s just some kind of a stupid racket where the people are just reinforcing themselves.
This assertion is not only audacious but also fundamentally incorrect.
“There was no treatment 40 or 50 years ago for Alzheimer’s disease,” stated Sterling Johnson, a professor specializing in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in an interview with Engadget. “What we’ve been able to achieve over the last two decades has actually been quite remarkable. We’ve developed diagnostic markers that allow us to identify the onset of this disease, utilizing amyloid markers and tau biomarkers. We now understand that the disease initiates up to 20 years before symptoms manifest, which is critical knowledge for prevention strategies.”
Currently, while Alzheimer’s remains an incurable condition, the absence of a miraculous solution does not diminish the significant strides made in early detection and preventive measures. “The initial treatments were merely symptomatic relief, akin to addressing a cold,” explained Johnson. “The first generation of amyloid therapies functioned similarly, as they primarily focused on symptom management by enhancing neuronal activity and increasing neurotransmitter availability to brain cells.” Johnson’s research team is part of one of the largest and longest studies observing individuals at risk for developing Alzheimer’s. He further elaborated, “We now have the potential to actually modify the disease biology, targeting both the amyloid pathway and other proteinopathies, such as tau, with ongoing clinical trials.”
As a proponent of groundbreaking advancements in radical life extension—including a reported interest in receiving transfusions from younger individuals—Thiel views scientific research in this realm as sluggish and overly cautious. However, significant progress is being made right now. Professor Johnson highlighted a monoclonal antibody named gantenerumab. In initial trials involving 73 participants with genetic predispositions leading to amyloid overproduction, the treatment reduced the incidence of Alzheimer’s symptoms by nearly 50%. “Major phase-three prevention trials are currently underway,” Johnson noted, using lecanemab and donanemab, which are already known to be more effective at clearing beta-amyloid than gantenerumab.
For someone who regards himself as a contrarian thinker, Thiel appears to echo remarks from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current head of the FDA under the Trump administration. Kennedy commented during a recent Department of Health budget hearing, “Alzheimer’s serves as a prime example of how [National Institute of Health] research has gone awry over the past two decades with amyloid plaques.” He accused the NIH of “stifling any alternative hypotheses” due to supposed “corruption.”
Predictably, the Alzheimer’s Association has labeled these claims as “demonstrably false.”
“In reality, over the past decade (2014-2023), less than 14% of new National Institutes of Health (NIH) projects on Alzheimer’s focused on amyloid beta as a therapeutic target,” the organization stated. “As of September 2024, the National Institute on Aging was investing in 495 pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials. To claim that Alzheimer’s research is concentrated solely on amyloid while excluding other avenues is categorically incorrect.”
If I were personally seeking more robust medical research and a pathway to eternal life (which I am not), undermining an administration that is systematically reducing funding for scientific research would seem like an odd strategy. Yet, this is the type of incoherence we have come to expect from tech oligarchs; they often voice opinions that serve their interests, even if they are blatantly nonsensical or easily debunked upon even a moment’s critical thought. It is disheartening to witness a reputable publication grant them a platform to disseminate such views.
Update June 27, 2025 2:15ET: This story now includes additional clinical trial information.
Daniel Mercer
