3 ms·
Perhaps but the discovery is still significant. Until now there was no such correlation with Alzeimher's and Fungi. This has significant implications in terms
by 3327 11y ago
Perhaps but the discovery is still significant. Until now there was no such correlation with Alzeimher's and Fungi.
This has significant implications in terms of direction of future research.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Until now there was no such correlation with Alzeimher's and Fungi. The point of the criticism seems to be that with an improper control group, there still isn't such a correlation, just a suggestion of a possibility of a correlation. But it might be a correlation between, e.g., age and fungal infection. That's why, but for the variables under study, you want your control group to look as much like your experimental group as possible.
- philipov 11y agoA general correlation between age and fungal infection might be even more significant, since that suggests a path to reduce the effects of aging in general. Either way, a follow-up study to remove those control flaws and hone in on the cause would be necessary.
- nickff 11y agoEven with an improper control group, the fungi-Alzheimer's correlation still exists. There may be another factor which is causing the correlation (a so-called 'dreaded third thing'), and the correlation may not indicate causation, but the correlation still exists.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 11y agoThat's not how correlations work.
- calinet6 11y agoThat is how correlations may not work, though.
- zeckalpha 11y agoThe improper control means that there is a just as strong of a correlation between age and fungi.