Does faceit anti cheat take pictures4/5/2023 ![]() ![]() The other is a much broader story about Alzheimer’s research, and where this leaves it. One is about the alleged fabrication itself, why somebody might do it, the pressures of academia, and so on. It seems to me there’s two separate stories going on here. Nevertheless, I don’t think the importance of beta-amyloid has been questioned. I think most people in the field would now say that they are one facet of the disease process. It used to be thought that they are the key drivers, but in the last ten years, that has changed. The question is whether they, by themselves alone, drive the disease process, or whether they’re part of a larger ensemble of events that cause the disease. The question here is not whether they’re important - I think everybody would agree they’re important. They’re probably also an agent of the disease. ![]() But from what I understand, the allegedly fraudulent data solidified the already-popular theory that plaques made up of beta amyloid proteins are - I don’t know if “cause” is the right word here - but they’re a key marker of Alzheimer’s. But if I saw this in a review process with modern image-analysis technology - which is not standard in journals, and it wasn’t standard before - it would certainly lead to a rejection of the paper. What worries me more is that there are multiple allegations of fabrication of images against the author. I would say that the data that have emerged from the forensic analysis that I’ve seen of the images strongly support the idea that there’s fabrication. Are you fully convinced that this seminal Nature paper included fabricated images? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |