4 ms·

Recent big threads yesterday and a few days ago with 250+ comments each: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32212719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=322

• hprotagonist 4y ago
  Not a dupe, per se. Derek Lowe's summaries of current events are themselves valuable and aren't just "hey look, [this thing]!".
  • pvg 4y ago
    HN dupes are mostly by value rather than by reference and there's also a kind of topic repetition limit even when the there's more commentary on the topic.
  • dang 4y ago
    That's a good point. I call this sort of post either a follow-up or a quasidupe, depending on how dupey (?) it is. The problem is that the HN discussions on a topic cluster tend to be much the same, even if the article itself isn't. But I've taken the [dupe] stigma off this one now.
• dang 4y ago
  Might as well keep it updated I suppose. Two decades of Alzheimer’s research was based on deliberate fraud - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32212719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32212719 - July 2022 (295 comments) Potential fabrication in research threatens the amyloid theory of Alzheimer’s - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32183302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32183302 - July 2022 (236 comments) Alzheimer’s amyloid hypothesis ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure (2019) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31828509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31828509 - June 2022 (307 comments) How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225 - Dec 2019 (382 comments) The amyloid hypothesis on trial - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17618027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17618027 - July 2018 (43 comments) Is the Alzheimer's “Amyloid Hypothesis” Wrong? (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17444214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17444214 - July 2018 (109 comments)
  • panabee 4y ago
    this isn't a HN comment page, but it contains comments from co-authors, alzheimer's researchers, and most critically the lab lead (professor ashe) who overaw lesne's paper: https://www.alzforum.org/news/community-news/sylvain-lesne-who-found-av56-accused-image-manipulation https://www.alzforum.org/news/community-news/sylvain-lesne-w... professor ashe declined to comment for the science article but commented here. notably, she claims the journalist conflated two forms of Aβ and drew invalid conclusions. hat tip to @atombender for surfacing this page. tldr: many scientists believe the fraud is grave and inexcusable but the impact on research is greatly exaggerated. comments on twitter from other researchers seem to echo this sentiment.