They are very interesting, but I'd have to be convinced that they were necessary context. Because the question that I think is important is whether this was true and widespread:
> I think there are a lot of people who feel like they were locked out of funding opportunities because of the focus on amyloid-beta. Maybe this is true, I don’t know.
And you don't know. I don't know either.
We can't say that anything would be farther along if these frauds had not happened, because that is a counterfactual. We can just guess that if we spend resources in areas that didn't have as much fraud surrounding them, we would be more likely to be farther along. Any argument otherwise is an argument that the direction and funding of research doesn't ever really matter.
I don't think any avenue of research should be abandoned if anybody still sees any possible value in it. But I know that funding decisions heavily influenced by fraudulent research are not going to be better made than decisions not influenced by fraud; and that if we were making decisions based on fraud over a long period of time, it is safe to assume that there was a loss. If we want to be less likely to repeat this loss, we probably need to change how we evaluate where to allocate funding.