Dr. Bredesen vs. The New York Times: Whose Model Is More Predictive?

The battle for the truth about brain health hits the mainstream

This week, The New York Times published yet another example of what has become a familiar genre: the wellness hit piece. This time, the target was Dr. Dale Bredesen, a neurologist who has spent the last decade challenging the status quo in cognitive decline care with a bold and hopeful question: Can Alzheimer’s be reversed?

The article, filled with skepticism, half-contexts, and the usual subtle character digs, does what so many articles like this have done: punch down at those daring to rethink chronic disease, especially when they sit at the uncomfortable intersection of medicine and wellness. It paints Bredesen as something close to a charlatan, sidestepping decades of his published research, ignoring the deep logic of his model, and glossing over the mounting evidence that precision medicine works.

Frankly, it’s borderline libelous. But more importantly, it forces us to ask a better question:

Whose model is more predictive?
Bredesen’s precision model of Alzheimer’s? Or conventional neurology’s failed drug-first paradigm?

---

The Scientific Trail: From Case Series to Controlled Trial

Let’s start with what science actually looks like.

When Dr. Bredesen first began reversing cognitive decline in patients, he did what any careful clinician does: he published a case series. Not anecdotes—documented clinical outcomes. A series of 100 patients who showed improvements on objective cognitive scores. That’s how paradigm shifts begin.

Then came the 2022 study in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, comparing his precision protocol to the current standard of care. The results weren’t subtle—they were substantial. Patients following Bredesen’s multifactorial approach got better, while those in the standard model continued to decline. We have the graphs. We have the data.

Now, he’s running the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the Bredesen protocol. You can follow the progress at DementiaReversalTrial.com.

One of the key sites for that trial is led by Dr. Kristine Burke, founder of TruNeura, whose patients have seen an average MoCA score improvement of 4.2 points—a number virtually unheard of in traditional neurology.

And yet, The New York Times felt comfortable writing him off as fringe.

---

A Model That Predicts—and Reflects Reality

Let’s talk about predictions. In general - those who can predict the future have a more accurate model of reality.

The core of Bredesen’s model is simple: Alzheimer’s and cognitive decline are multifactorial. He identifies multiple “types” or patterns of decline—metabolic, toxic, vascular, infectious, hormonal, traumatic—and outlines a precision approach to addressing them.

Sound radical?

Not anymore.

Just this month, a study made headlines showing that living near golf courses increases Parkinson’s risk—something that seems baffling to conventional neurology. But not to Dr. Bredesen and the precision medicine doctors that follow him or have been mentored by him.

The timing couldn’t be more apt as this week’s Make America Health Again Commission released it’s findings and even though that was related to children the same themes emerge when it comes to the root causes of chronic illness

• Environmental toxins

• Overmedication

• Food environment and metabolic health

• Overuse of technology

All of these are predicted and communicated as part of Dr. Bredesen’s work.

And the New York Times should have known better, only 5 months ago it was accurately documenting the state of science in Alzheimer’s. The only thing worse than overmedication and polypharmacy is using drugs that don’t work or have studies with unhelpful end points.

---

Terry Wahls and the Pattern of Pushback

And let’s not forget Dr. Terry Wahls, another pioneer who was initially dismissed and banned from MS conferences after she began sharing her story of reversing her own multiple sclerosis using a nutrient-dense, lifestyle-based protocol. Now, her methods are being taught inside the VA system, and her results are replicated in study after study.

It’s the same pattern we see with Dr. Bredesen:

1. Radical idea that reflects systems biology

2. Early success stories

3. Media and medical system pushback

4. Slow, undeniable accumulation of evidence

5. Eventual mainstream acceptance—decades later

We’ve seen this movie before. But this time, we don’t have decades to wait. Cognitive decline is rising faster than our medical system can respond. And we already have a model that works.

Check out Dr Bredesen’s rebuttal to the New York Times “Setting the Record Straight. Yes, cognitive decline can be reversed”

---

The Real Story: Hope, Empowerment, and Action

Dr. Bredesen’s model is empowering. It tells patients: you’re not broken, and you’re not helpless. It encourages doctors to move beyond Rx and explore sleep, toxins, infections, hormones, community, and purpose. It puts the patient in the center of a supportive system—a model that must include personalization, participation, and pattern recognition.

Is that messy? Sure. It doesn’t reduce to a single biomarker or a single pill. But it reflects the reality of human physiology, not the constraints of reimbursement model or drug first paradigm.

---

So... Whose Model Should You Bet On?

On one side:

• A neurologic model that still doesn’t know where Alzheimer’s comes from

• Failed drug after failed drug m

• A pipeline of expensive “breakthroughs” that don’t reverse decline

On the other:

• A model that predicted toxins, metabolism, and inflammation before they were trendy

• Real-world case studies

• A published trial

• A growing community of clinicians seeing consistent outcomes

We’ll leave it to you to decide.

But over here, we know which side we’re supporting.