I am quoting from the research published in Science:
Potential fabrication in research images threatens key theory of Alzheimer’s disease | Science | AAAS
In August 2021, Matthew Schrag, a neuroscientist and physician at Vanderbilt University, got a call that would plunge him into a maelstrom of possible scientific misconduct. A colleague wanted to connect him with an attorney investigating an experimental drug for Alzheimer’s disease called Simufilam. The drug’s developer, Cassava Sciences, claimed it improved cognition, partly by repairing a protein that can block sticky brain deposits of the protein amyloid beta (Aβ), a hallmark of Alzheimer’s. The attorney’s clients—two prominent neuroscientists who are also short sellers who profit if the company’s stock falls—believed some research related to Simufilam may have been “fraudulent,” according to a petition later filed on their behalf with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The matter is possibly subjudice in another jurisdiction, so I’d refrain from a frank commentary. Nevertheless, this calls into question the publishing “peer-review” process and the call for cleansing of stables. We need to have better and different processes of vetting and publishing (and not fill up content) or publishing for its sake.