> That result is pretty weak statistically and the phenotype is vague. As one would be expected from GWASes with current sizes and noisy measurements. Yet, tha

> That result is pretty weak statistically and the phenotype is vague. As one would be expected from GWASes with current sizes and noisy measurements. Yet, that's very different from 'never'. > Yes it passes GWAS threshold but a lot of associations do that are later found to be false positives That's not true. Genome-wide statistically-significant hits have excellent replication rates, when calculated properly.