3 ms·
Something doesn't quite make sense here. It seems there is good evidence that certain figures in Lesne's papers are fraudulent. Certainly that is a huge red f
by hcknwscommenter 4y ago
Something doesn't quite make sense here. It seems there is good evidence that certain figures in Lesne's papers are fraudulent. Certainly that is a huge red flag and it is likely that some (or all) of the findings are wrong. But that doesn't mean that the paper's ultimate conclusions are necessarily incorrect. I mean, thousands of papers go on to report on Aβ56, do they all just assume that Lesne's findings are true without further investigation? That seems highly unlikely. What's notable is that the entire article here never once refutes the most important finding of the original Lesne paper (Aβ56 can produce alzheimer's like symptoms in rats).
- appleflaxen 4y ago> What's notable is that the entire article here never once refutes the most important finding of the original Lesne paper (Aβ56 can produce alzheimer's like symptoms in rats). You refute a paper by showing that part of it is incorrect. The research sleuths have provided incredibly strong evidence that the very existence of Aβ56 is demonstrated (in the paper) by a sham line on the western blot. It's like somebody has demonstrated that a photo of a "ghost" is actually a double-exposed film, and you are stating "What's notable is that the entire article here never once refutes the most important finding of the original photo (that ghosts can haunt the waffle house)."