Charles Piller

Ja he saivat tämän myyntiin. He purkaisivat sitä yhden tyyppistä amyloidiproteiinia, injeksoivat niitä rauhoihin ja sitten tunnistivat, kuinka muotoilun systeemit, joita he verrattivat muotoilun ja ympäristön,

that people who have Alzheimer's disease have. So what we had here was the first ostensible cause and effect relationship between a particular substance and Alzheimer's disease. And people thought, ah, this is a revelation because it shows we are on the right track. We may not have had the right specific amyloid target in our research, but we know we're on the right track. We know that we're headed in the direction.

of curing Alzheimer's ultimately, or at least coming up with a treatment that can help the sufferers of Alzheimer's disease.

on thinking fast and slow to be doctored. It was like that big. Revolutionary for a community. Is that a good way to think about it? Yes, I think that is a good way to think about it, John, and essentially to cut to Matthew Schrag. So this went on, then there's a reinvigoration of the belief that the amyloid hypothesis was the correct way of looking at things. And

an invigoration that meant many more billions of dollars being spent on possible remedies. And then we had again failure after failure of these experimental drugs and then the science behind them to deliver on their promise.

Ja me myös silloin, tieto on hieman haastavaa, mutta minä kertoisin hyvin lyhyesti. Yksi vaikutuksista on se, että ihmiset, joilla on Alzheimer'sa, kun he kuolevat ja autopsioita on tehty, heillä on usein löytynyt todella monta ammeloidiproteiina ja myös tauoproteiinia. Ja silti

Olemme myös nähneet, että ihmiset, jotka elävät, eivätkä ole olleet sääntöjä Alzheimerin ongelmasta, ovat olleet olemassa näistä proteiineista. Tämä on yksi Alzheimerin ongelman kompleksisuudesta, jota ei ole koskaan ollut täysin ymmärrettävä ja hyvä kuvaus siitä.

Joten kuitenkin, mitä tapahtui tämän historiallisen experimentin jälkeen, kuten sanoit, Karen Ashen ja Sylvain Lesnayn yliopistossa. Se muodosti ajattelua taustalla, se muodosti amyloidin hypoteesia, se regeneroi rahoitusta tästä ja monia uusia experimentteja siitä.

Mutta mitä Matthew Schrag teki, ja viimeisenä olen takaisin alussa kysymyksestäsi, Matthew tutustui tämän tutkimuksen ongelmiin doktoreiden tieteellisten kuvien muodostamiseen, jotka sopivat kysymykseen koko experimentin perusteella.

If you have image after image within a seminal scientific study that are shown to be based on false science, on changes in these images to reflect the experimental hypothesis. In other words, when the actual data did not prove the hypothesis, the images were changed.

in a way that would suggest to reviewers and suggest to scientists that this hypothesis was true. This is a form of apparent scientific misconduct that had an enormous effect on the field, an enormous effect on funding and scientific research and drug development. Now, it was not solely responsible for that, but it was important at the time. It was one of the most cited scientific studies in the field in decades.

And this is what Matthew Schrag detected. This is what he found and brought the evidence to me so that he felt strongly that it had to be exposed into the world more generally so the scientific community could take stock and try to correct the thinking in the field that might have improperly skewed thinking in the direction of ideas that were not well founded.

So now I'm going to get to exactly your question, the risks that he took. So you're talking about a junior professor at Vanderbilt University, did not have tenure, going up against some of the biggest journals

funders and authorities, all people and institutions he needed to continue and develop his career, to become successful as a scientist himself. And yet he ultimately decided that his journey of discovery was central to helping the public understand this set of contradictions.

Hän uskoi minuun, jälkeen monta kuukautta keskustelua tästä, että hän uskoi minuun, että hän kertoo ympäristön ympäristön kautta sekä koulutuspäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäpäiväpäpäiväpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpä

Well, yes and no. So what Schrag did is that he always followed the path of the appropriate way to question research, which is to go to the funding agencies and the journals, the agencies that funded the work and the journals that published it, and to present all of his information openly to them and make sure that they had the full set of concerns about a body of work

in order to judge whether it's worth looking at and whether his concerns might be well founded. And it was only after months and months of being stonewalled by those institutions, months and months of being ignored by

the journals that are responsible for the scientific record itself, that he felt that it was appropriate for him to come out publicly through my writing. And so the short answer is yes, he followed the sort of prescribed protocols and found them to be unfortunately not very useful. And this is

Voin lisätä hyvin tyypillistä tarinaa. Tällaiset instituutiot ovat parhaillaan tutustumassa ongelmiin, jotka tapahtuvat heidän näkökulmastaan, sekä sen mukaan kuin sen mukaan, että heidän ongelmansa on se, että he yrittävät vahvistaa ihmisiä, jotka kriittisivät heitä. Siinä on kauheampi tarina siitä, mutta kyseessä on se, että kyllä, hän käsitteli niitä instituutioita eikä saa työtä.

No, just to be clear, look, we're all human. We all make mistakes. I have made mistakes in my reporting, although I got to say it's pretty unusual because I'm a careful person and I have great editing and great fact checking. But that said, whenever there's a claim that I've made a mistake,