Right, monocausal explanations in-general will set-off my skept-o-sense too; but then my mind made me think of another example: Andrew Wakefield (except that AW succeeded more at convincing Facebook-moms than the scientific establishment - but still harmed society just as much, IMO)

I 100% agree with you that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. Data being falsified and the hypothesis being wrong are two different things.

Amyloid deposits correlate with Alzheimer’s, but they do not cause the symptoms. We know this because we have drugs which (in some patients, not approved for general use) completely clear out amyloids, but have no affect on symptoms or outcomes. We have other very promising medications that do nothing to amyloids. We also have tons of people who have had brain autopsies for other reasons and found to have very high levels of amyloid deposits, but no symptoms of dementia prior to death.

Alzheimer’s isn’t caused by amyloids.

Anyone who believes that an entire field and decades of researched pivoted entirely around one researcher falsifying data is oversimplifying. The situation was not good, but it’s silly to act like it all came down to this one person and that there wasn’t anything else the industry was using as their basis for allocating research bets.

This is not my area of expertise, and maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but I thought that what AlphaFold does is extrapolate a structure from the sequence. The actual relationship with the other existing proteins would have been found by the investigators through other, more traditional means (like the 3D search you mentioned).

Universal healthcare is about who is paying, not necessarily about who is running the service.

One, in some of the countries I know (with universal healthcare and no centralised records) you don't go to a random doctor. You have a declared family doctor and you have to go to them unless they are unavailable, in which case the other doctor you go to has to declare that you couldn't go to your doctor. It's a small hurdle to prevent doctor shopping, but it means people are more likely to always see the same doctor. Specialists are given the relevant information by the family doctor when referring a patient to a specialist, and in most other cases records are not really needed, or the ER will contact whoever to get the information they think they need. It might sound hazardous but in practice it works fine.

Second, some places have centrally-stored records but the access is controlled by the patient. Every access to the record is disclosed to the patient and he has the possibility to revoke access to anyone at any time. That generally goes together with laws that fundamentally oppose any automated access or sharing of these records to third parties.

And third, I don't understand what any of this has to do with who whether healthcare access is universal or not? Universal healthcare without centralised records exists (in France, unless it has changed in recent years, but it at least existed for 60 years or so) and centralised records without universal healthcare could exist (maybe privately managed by insurance companies, since the absence of universal healthcare would indicate a pretty disengaged state).

This was the last decades way of doing things. The current decade is to stay within the desired charting system. That way you can one-click share data between doctors. Typically you would search for doctors that utilize the same charting platform. EPIC is probably the largest one in US today

This was somewhat annoying since unlike the UK system, the Australian system is essentially private GPs getting paid for your individual appointments by the government (so called bulk billing), so there's no guarantee that you can go to the same doctor every time.