Oh my god if true, and it looks to be true this is huge.
The amyloid beta (Aβ) hypothesis has always been fishy but this paper is basically the bedrock of the current investigational trajectory.
The Aβ hypothesis was almost dead in 2006 when this method was invented and results posted and it sent shockwaves through the research world. Since then spending on Aβ research by NIH has gone from $0 to $290 million all it seems based on a lie cited over 2000 times in further papers.
The article is pretty convincing as is the independent verification that not only concurred but found additional evidence.
>> it seems based on a lie cited over 2000 times in further papers.
Since papers tend to get published only if they have positive results, what does it mean for thousands of publications all citing a fraudulent paper? This seems really strange. If the first 1000 failed to produce results and were partially based on that original paper it should cast significant doubt on it, but again failures are rarely published.
Imagine I post an article that’s fraudlent and ”proves” that small rocks of a certain size and color keep away tigers. You won’t then see 200 articles saying they tried to replicate this and failed. What you see is 2000 articles dealing with how to find rocks of this exact size and color, siting my paper to support why it’s relevant to be looking for rocks in that category.
Citation doesn't mean dependency. It just means the paper was mentioned. What it does mean is that each and everyone of those papers must be re-examined with extra scrutiny to see if they hold up without the cited paper.
A lot of papers that came after were producing results in the framework it established.
Because of the nature of a disease like Alzheimer's not many studies can easily measure the final effectiveness of their addition to the space on patients.
To me this is one of the most damning things about this: all the people citing these papers and probably burying negative results. Yes, fraud is unacceptable, but what about all the people using it to further their careers?
These types of cases tend to focus on the fraud, but then everyone eventually walks away and then there's no larger discussion of how this was enabled by the field to have such a hold.
I don't buy the idea that it's all so quixotic and involves so many variables to get right that who knows what's causing a lack of replication. I've heard whispers like this about other big effects in other fields. People know what's going on, and often it's right there in published results but ignored.
If this is true, it is beyond fraud. These are crimes against humanity.
My paternal grandfather got diagnosed at around 70, and my father is 62 now, definitely getting more forgetful but normal for 60+... Still, I worry about him regularly. My father is a clinical psychologist, he's helped people all his life.
These news make me so angry I can hardly see straight. I genuinely hope this sociopath waste of skin gets Alzheimers himself, and has to relive every moment of his disgusting crimes as his brain slowly turns to mush and he forgets every person he ever loved(if he is even capable of love...)
I appreciate the sentiment, but as good as it felt to blow off some steam in this thread this morning, I'm not the type of person who sends deathwishes to people's work email...
Understandable. My condolences to you and your family on having to go through the hell you have had to.
When a bit calmer, I would still encourage you to reach out and find constructive ways of dealing with the grief.
That may commonly be to write letters/email to those that have affected you. It seems that Dr. Lense's work has had that affect on you and it may be helpful to you to write to him. Academics don't interact much with the public and having someone write to them does help focus their work and right wrongs. You may come to new understandings of the Dr.'s efforts and of your own self.
Again, best of luck and I hope you find peace and guidance.
This is weirdly confrontational, my therapist would not recommend writing an email to a professor who wronged me even on some abstract level. That's not how a psychologist counsellor would suggest confronting one's grief.
The main thing is that it's never valuable to exactly replicate a study, from a commercial, career or publication perspective. Other studies may 'incidentally' cover the same ground, but then there are any number of variables which can explain why "this seemed to be different, but".
That being said, numerous papers have been published undermining the 'amyloid beta as primary disease driver' theory already. Or at least, finding no statistical correlation between AB and neuron death or that sort of thing. The most valid hypothesis that I've seen is that AB is just a supporting element for another amyloid, tau, which does correlate with toxicity.
The amyloid beta (Aβ) hypothesis has always been fishy but this paper is basically the bedrock of the current investigational trajectory.
The Aβ hypothesis was almost dead in 2006 when this method was invented and results posted and it sent shockwaves through the research world. Since then spending on Aβ research by NIH has gone from $0 to $290 million all it seems based on a lie cited over 2000 times in further papers.
The article is pretty convincing as is the independent verification that not only concurred but found additional evidence.
Sylvain Lesne has some ‘splainin to do.