this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
158 points (99.4% liked)

science

14528 readers
614 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago (3 children)

amyloid plaque crowd: UwUpsie! :blush:

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week 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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] fishos 16 points 1 week 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 6 points 1 week ago

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