I mean, the plaque might still have an effect; it's possible that exposure to the viruses described in the article could lead to higher levels of amyloid beta plaque, or cause the plaque to be more harmful. Kinda like how a broken leg might be caused by a fall, but the actual problem wasn't the fall, it's the fact your leg is broken.

[–] listless@lemmy.cringecollective.io 5 points 1 month ago

Sure. It might. But no other opposing views were explored. Suggesting anything other than an amyloid plaque targeted drug ended careers.

That's not okay.

[–] SpacePirate@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It was absolutely worth the money ruling it out. That’s literally how science works.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Except the original study wasn't properly vetted for decades and it really set us back because we blindly followed the wrong path. Science institutions failed this time around. In this case, the money was more of a tragic loss.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Yeeeeaaaaahhhh. False evidence there, and the amount of money lost on it is possibly in the Trillions.