This article has a principal issue in its click baity and reductionist title. As the quote from Richard Oakley points out, "it is essential that we interpret this review with nuance". The article does a decent job of balancing this in text, but many readers will have a primary take home from the title.

Amyloid therapies are still developing and as pointed out in the article, the analysis presented reduces research down without accounting for the developing nature of the field. Most researchers agree treatment changes are small and don’t see it as a magic bullet for Alzheimer’s treatment, but to conclude it is totally ineffective is not backed up.