It's a bit sad to see people jump on the witch-hunt bandwagon every time something like this is published. That kind of reaction is an absolute disservice to th

It's a bit sad to see people jump on the witch-hunt bandwagon every time something like this is published. That kind of reaction is an absolute disservice to the public. Even if this guys turns out to be a totally 100% evil fraudster who took millions of NIH funding to buy coke, b&*#!es, and fancy cars while knowing that his drug might kill dozens of people, it just demonstrates that the system for awarding such funds is deeply flawed. Science is about fact finding, how are we even pretending that that's a remote possibility with a sample size of one? Studies need to be independently verified _multiple times over_ to actually establish them as facts.. that's standard procedure in other fields. That we just abandon that scrutiny by blindly accepting anyone's claims because they wrote X number of papers on a topic is not on that guy at all. And worse, nothing will change buy burning him at the stake of public opinion. The next guy comes along and the story repeats, science.org and the "whistleblowers" get their five minutes of fame (and click $$$). If we want things to change we need to hold the institutions who award such grants and fast-track permissions accountable, instead of allowing them to get away with a cheap scapegoat.