It's not just about the forgery but don't take it from me:

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/positive-amyloid-trial-finally

> At the same time, though, news like this needs to be examined carefully. As the world knows, the anti-amyloid clinical landscape for Alzheimer's is absolutely littered with failures in every direction: anti-amyloid antibodies of various types, attempts to inhibit beta-secretase and gamma-secretase enzymes, attempts to prevent aggregation, you name it. Nothing has worked. The presumption at this point is that such therapies will not succeed, so if lecanemab has indeed worked, the question is what makes it different. There's a ready answer (up to a point) because antibodies can indeed be quite different (that's their point!) and if you do manage to hit exactly what needs to be hit, you could expect efficacy when apparently similar attempts have led to nothing.

So being skeptical towards amyloid therapies isn't unwarranted, or casual dismissal.

It's not casual dismissal when human trials fail and the ground laying research included forgery.

Could I get a link to this?

Before the fraud was discovered several studies were stopped because Amyloid therapies had disappointing results in human trials.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33646990/