Some of many critical comments from a previous discussion on HN (one week ago) [1]: > "As a biomedical researcher, I'm confident in calling this sloppy science

Some of many critical comments from a previous discussion on HN (one week ago) [1]: > "As a biomedical researcher, I'm confident in calling this sloppy science." > "The discovery, if corroborated by others, could indeed be huge but I'm afraid it wouldn't open up new treatment options anytime soon. Fungal infections inside the body are really really hard to treat in the first place." > "I bet if they double stain with anti-amyloid-Beta they will see the staining overlap. They just say they used "antibody raised against proteins obtained from C. glabrata, C. famata, C. albicans, P. betae and S. racemosum", so they don't even know (or want to say) what these antibodies react with..." > "All of the Alzheimer's patients were 79 or older, while all of the control patients were younger than 79 except for one. More than half of the control patients were under 60. That doesn't seem like a very good control to me." > "This article does NOT provide compelling evidence that fungi are the causative agent for AD. It merely reports correlative observations. You may conclude that antifungal drugs could help patients with AD. You may also think that vaccination or some other mechanism of prevention could reduce the prevalence of AD. These conclusions are simply not supported by the data." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10401344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10401344