Some points from the article:
Most scientific papers are incremental and rarely make headlines, with only a few results reaching the public. To assess scientific news, consider the timeline. Significant findings often build on years of research and also the scope, since broader claims usually lack robust support. Patience is essential - scientific conclusions are built via debate and scrutiny and evolve. While some science is just too incomplete to reach firm conclusions yet. The evidence is still accumulating. Like claims about the small-brained human relative Homo naledi. Did they make art, use fire, and bury their dead as claimed? Probably, but it’s too soon to say for sure.
Examples from the article include the South Pole telescope finding primordial waves from the earliest moments of the Big Bang - which sadly was just local dust. Also the phosphine in the Venusian atmosphere which the discoverers proposed came from some form of exotic life floating in the cloud tops. That was just flawed methodology.
Exciting research is often incorrect due to speculative ideas or over-narrow parameters. But speculation is needed. “if we knew the answers ahead of time, we wouldn’t need to do science”. Scientists also face pressure to publish high-impact results. That can lead to exaggerated findings or even fraud. Additionally, media sensationalism can distort scientific reporting. Trust in science has declined as contradictory claims in the media promote doubt about the scientific method. Some discoveries, like gravitational waves, are compelling and well-founded, but most intriguing results need caution.
Tau seems like the only remaining target for treating alzheimers so it good to see a new drug thats active in that space. Antiamyloid treatments have been ineffective. Interesting that it strenthens healthy tau structures rather than reducing overall levels of this useful/vital molecule Compared to this drug https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/apr/first-gene-silencing-drug-alzheimers-disease-shows-promise for example