Would be ironic if the trial shows that the drug works after all this. But that seems incredibly doubtful. This guy should go to prison for a long time. That’s 1,800 people in a trial who could have been taking a non fraudulent drug that has a better chance of working.
Is there a better and non-fraudulent drug out there? I’m not asking to further an argument, I’m asking because I have a family member with this disease.
People who followed a pattern of eating all of their food across less than 8 hours per day had a 91% higher risk of death due to cardiovascular disease.
That just fails the laugh test. That can't possibly be true.
The amyloid hypothesis researchers have done grave damage to general society in their intransigence to abandon a position that has been proven over and over to not lead to useful treatments.
I know in a lot of past submissions here about academic fraud, a good chunk of the comments wondered how it wasn't a punishable crime.
Well, now we know the answer! I hope we get a lot more of this. Given how much of academic funding is provided by the government, it's not unrealistic to think that the feds can break the back of academic fraud by pursuing more of these cases.
The burden these people cast on society is arguably worse than a ponzi schemer. They steal money from taxpayers, the livelihoods of researchers, and time from those who can least afford to waste it.
Even then, this current indictment goes after "one count of major fraud against the United States, two counts of wire fraud, and one count of false statements" - that is, the low hanging fruit.
In particular, there is no attempt (in these specific charges) to seek conviction or punishment for "hurting people by delaying science, drug studies or treatment" - which would be justified in such circumstances. Don't know if there is current law that could be thrown at that. Probably yes.
There will be certainly time to take that into account in sentencing. The court may not go easy on that guy.
17 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 55.7 ms ] threadhttps://newsroom.heart.org/news/8-hour-time-restricted-eatin...
People who followed a pattern of eating all of their food across less than 8 hours per day had a 91% higher risk of death due to cardiovascular disease.
That just fails the laugh test. That can't possibly be true.
There is only this published abstract: https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20343/presentation/37...
(which does not contain the 91% by the way; though it is reported widely. perhaps it was in the presentation).
Here is a page with expert reactions (most are skeptical)
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-confer...
tl;dr: I don't believe a word of it.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/news/keto-diet-prevents-early....
https://ncats.nih.gov/news-events/news/ketogenic-diet-alzhei...
https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-detail...
https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/another-milestone-...
Also, the 40hz therapy stuff looks compelling to me. I made a free website that you can use on a phone to try it:
https://alzheimersbuddy.com/
At best, maybe, progress gets slowed. A little.
The amyloid hypothesis researchers have done grave damage to general society in their intransigence to abandon a position that has been proven over and over to not lead to useful treatments.
Well, now we know the answer! I hope we get a lot more of this. Given how much of academic funding is provided by the government, it's not unrealistic to think that the feds can break the back of academic fraud by pursuing more of these cases.
The burden these people cast on society is arguably worse than a ponzi schemer. They steal money from taxpayers, the livelihoods of researchers, and time from those who can least afford to waste it.
In particular, there is no attempt (in these specific charges) to seek conviction or punishment for "hurting people by delaying science, drug studies or treatment" - which would be justified in such circumstances. Don't know if there is current law that could be thrown at that. Probably yes.
There will be certainly time to take that into account in sentencing. The court may not go easy on that guy.
Anyway, yes, a good start.