The question of whether President Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is colluding with pharmaceutical companies to rush approvals of Alzheimer’s drugs is a complex and highly debated topic. While there is no definitive public evidence proving outright collusion, several factors and concerns have fueled suspicions and criticism about the speed and manner in which Alzheimer’s treatments are being reviewed and approved.
Alzheimer’s disease is a devastating neurodegenerative condition with few effective treatments, creating immense pressure on regulators, policymakers, and pharmaceutical companies to deliver new therapies quickly. The Biden administration’s HHS, which oversees the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has been under scrutiny for potentially accelerating the approval process for Alzheimer’s drugs, sometimes relying heavily on biomarkers rather than long-term clinical outcomes. This approach has raised alarms among some scientists, patient advocates, and watchdog groups who worry that the rush to approve new drugs may compromise patient safety and scientific rigor.
One key point of contention is the FDA’s use of surrogate endpoints—biological markers thought to predict clinical benefit—instead of waiting for clear evidence that a drug improves cognitive function or quality of life. Critics argue that this shortcut could lead to approvals of drugs that do not meaningfully help patients or whose risks are not fully understood. Some experts and advocacy groups have publicly voiced concerns that the FDA’s accelerated pathways, encouraged or supported by HHS leadership, may be influenced by pharmaceutical industry interests eager to bring costly new drugs to market quickly.
Moreover, the pharmaceutical industry wields significant influence through lobbying and financial power, which can create conflicts of interest or at least the appearance of undue influence on regulatory decisions. The high stakes involved—both in terms of potential profits from blockbuster Alzheimer’s drugs and the urgent demand from patients and families—can create pressure on regulators to expedite approvals. This environment can blur the lines between rigorous scientific evaluation and commercial interests.
On the other hand, defenders of the current approval processes argue that the traditional drug development timeline is too slow for diseases like Alzheimer’
