This is what the article actually says:

Schrag says oligomers might still a play role in Alzheimer’s. Following the Nature paper, other investigators connected combinations of oligomers to cognitive impairment in animals. “The wider story [of oligomers] potentially survives this one problem,” Schrag says. “But it makes you pause and rethink the foundation of the story.”

Selkoe adds that the broader amyloid hypothesis remains viable. “I hope that people will not become faint hearted as a result of what really looks like a very egregious example of malfeasance that’s squarely in the Aβ oligomer field,” he says. But if current phase 3 clinical trials of three drugs targeting amyloid oligomers all fail, he notes, “the Aβ hypothesis is very much under duress.”

This does not mean that the plaque theory has been proven - far from it. They simply say that the plaque theory remains viable - like other other theories. These are two paragraphs in a multi-page article addressing the malfeseance of the original theory, and outlining all the other theories, experiments etc that were based on the original falsified images.

I don't know. You decided to tell me that cancer patients have nothing to be ashamed of -- which of course I know -- because you didn't actually read what I wrote, which was a critique of society's views of cancer patients.

Now, you somehow are going to the mat for the plaque theory for Alzheimers, based on one sentence that explains that the theory remains "viable." Do you know what viable means? It definitely doesn't mean "proven."

You didn't "hurt my feelings." You tried to, by telling me that my wriiting was bad, but you didn't. What you DID do, and continue to do, is lecture me. I can confidently tell you that most Medium writers won't like that. You're probably new here.

Meanwhile, the lectures are reveal a real lack of reading comprehension. For instance, you decided to inform me that Susan Sontag's work was from 50 years ago, and then proceeded to explain to me the changes in cancer diagnoses since then, as if I haven't been alive, watching people living with cancer. As if I don't know when Sontag was writing.

It's funny. There are plenty of other thoughtful comments on this piece that I haven't had the time to respond to, but somehow here I am responding to you, someone who loves to lecture the author of a piece you clearly didn't read or understand. Clearly I need a shrink.