> as Aisen put it last week on the sidelines of the Aspen Ideas Festival, “I don’t think I’m part of a cabal.” That's nice. No one thinks they're doing evil.

> as Aisen put it last week on the sidelines of the Aspen Ideas Festival, “I don’t think I’m part of a cabal.” That's nice. No one thinks they're doing evil. >A frequent reason top journals declined to publish her papers, as they did those of other amyloid skeptics, was previous rejections. As one peer reviewer wrote about a funding proposal Itzhaki submitted in 2010, “very few [of your] papers have appeared in the most highly regarded journals.” I don't think "cabal" is too harsh a word to use here. "Other journals have rejected you, so we will, too." > One of the four reviewers gave her scores of “poor” (3 on a 10-point scale) on key criteria, arguing that because “there is no conclusive evidence for a major role of this pathogen in Alzheimer’s disease,” the research “will not have an impact on advancing the field of dementia research.” A second reviewer called the role of pathogens in Alzheimer’s “a fringe topic.” Although one gave Itzhaki scores of 10 (“outstanding”), the two dismissive reviews sank her chances. If the amyloid hypothesis had made stunning progress, that approach might have made sense. If not... "the jury is still out, so let's hear your ideas" would be the real Science.