3 ms·

If the results are fraudulent, why didn't anyone notice in the past 16 years that they failed to replicate?

• AB674 4y ago
  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.