[xitrium]

I appreciate your commitment to modernist capital-S Science here :) I'm familiar with how the field ought to work but after working in Andrew Gelman's lab for some years, also with how it can fail us. Here I think the researcher in question has had a much larger impact than you are allowing for. Here's a choice quote:

> Every single disease-modifying trial of Alzheimer’s has failed.

> The huge majority of those have addressed the amyloid hypothesis, of course, from all sorts of angles. Even the truest believers are starting to wonder. Dennis Selkoe’s entire career has been devoted to the subject, and he’s quoted in the Science article as saying that if the trials that are already in progress also fail, then “the A-beta hypothesis is very much under duress”. Yep.

And the original expose is quite interesting if you haven't read it yet https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabricatio...

[epistasis]

The hypothesis was under great duress even in 2004, when I took a protein structure course that spent a lot of time on prions and the beta amyloid. Many people have devoted their careers to chasing this down, only one as far as we know published impactful fake data.

However, the particular faked data, despite lots of citations, has apparently not lead to any clinical trials:

> Did the AB*56 Work Lead to Clinical Trials? That’s a question that many have been asking since this scandal broke a few days ago. And the answer is that no, I have been unable to find a clinical trial that specifically targeted the AB*56 oligomer itself (I’ll be glad to be corrected on this point, though).