4 ms·

This article has very few details and is rather questionable, at best. Correlation does not imply causation. It could very well be that people who choose to get

This article has very few details and is rather questionable, at best. Correlation does not imply causation. It could very well be that people who choose to get flu vaccines are more health-conscious and live a healthier lifestyle so they are less likely to get Alzheimers.

ortusdux 4y ago
The 3rd paragraph links to the publication that this article is a brief summary of. They controlled for many lifestyle factors in their research. https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad220361#S1 https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-...
i_love_limes 4y ago
It links to the actual paper if you are interested, the paper has a whole table of covariates it took into consideration. https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad220361#jad--1-jad220361-t002 https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-... I don't think the paper or the journal article suggested it was causal either. But such a correlation with such a large population warrants publication and further research into causation. You unfortunately chose literally the first thing that any epidemiologist would consider, which is considering potential confounders. Maybe read up a bit before commenting.
yeeetz 4y ago
This is a published journal article that took those covariates into account. Off-hand comments dismissing articles with a correlation vs. causation quip is so expected and tiresome, especially since you can make these comments without reading the actual article.
- bloodyplonker22 4y ago
  It's interesting how you can condescendingly say "took these covariates into account" without even thinking about how many outside variables there are that they simply cannot take into account because there are obviously too many. Most people don't think too much and just read articles and take anything in writing as the truth.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    "Most people", particularly, who make knee-jerk "correl- not causation" trolls for HN points. You played yourself.

ortusdux 4y ago

The 3rd paragraph links to the publication that this article is a brief summary of. They controlled for many lifestyle factors in their research. https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad220361#S1 https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-...

i_love_limes 4y ago

It links to the actual paper if you are interested, the paper has a whole table of covariates it took into consideration. https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad220361#jad--1-jad220361-t002 https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-... I don't think the paper or the journal article suggested it was causal either. But such a correlation with such a large population warrants publication and further research into causation. You unfortunately chose literally the first thing that any epidemiologist would consider, which is considering potential confounders. Maybe read up a bit before commenting.

yeeetz 4y ago

This is a published journal article that took those covariates into account. Off-hand comments dismissing articles with a correlation vs. causation quip is so expected and tiresome, especially since you can make these comments without reading the actual article.

bloodyplonker22 4y ago
It's interesting how you can condescendingly say "took these covariates into account" without even thinking about how many outside variables there are that they simply cannot take into account because there are obviously too many. Most people don't think too much and just read articles and take anything in writing as the truth.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  "Most people", particularly, who make knee-jerk "correl- not causation" trolls for HN points. You played yourself.