> are presented in the appendix[1], Thank you, missed the appendix. Also see that in the figure page list CI as 95%. > These measures are already known to be

> are presented in the appendix[1], Thank you, missed the appendix. Also see that in the figure page list CI as 95%. > These measures are already known to be strongly correlated... The paper does explicitly make clear when findings of independence are relevant The first few paragraphs in the article here and the Significance section in the actually paper imply a strong independence. My point above is basically that the independence looks to be much weaker than a casual read might imply. It also boast with the largest study ever done on the subject, which might be true, but the absolute number are actually quite low with only a few individuals being responsible for a large effect in the data. That is one of the biggest warning signs that exist in this kind of research. I thus get skeptical, at which point I start to look why there seems to be a disconnect.