4 ms·

> Two other studies, one by GSK, a pharmaceutical company, and another by a group of academics in Britain, also reported that a newer “recombinant” vaccine, wh

> Two other studies, one by GSK, a pharmaceutical company, and another by a group of academics in Britain, also reported that a newer “recombinant” vaccine, which is more effective at preventing shingles than the live version, appeared to confer even greater protection against dementia. "confer" is something you use for a proven link with an interventional study, not for some random link you found within the thousands of variables you went fishing for in your observation study dataset.

Mordisquitos 2y ago
Hence why the article does not say that the vaccine conferred protection against dementia, but rather that it appeared to confer protection.
- ekianjo 2y ago
  appear to confer is a pretty biased wording. Rather, the only correct way to write about it is "there was a correlation that needs further investigation, we have no idea if there is a causal link about it".
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    thr vaccine study is a pretty clear (partial) causal link. there is a jump discontinuity in all causes dementia cases based on week of birth, where the jump occurs at the NHS policy cutoff week (if you are older than this week you are ineligible fof the vaccine). It's likely partial because vaccines only confer resistance against one subset of virii and there may be nonviral Alzheimer's too. in any case causality is not really in question in that study
  - Mordisquitos 2y ago
    I do not see the bias, all the more so given that the whole article after that first paragraph very clearly explains that further investigation is taking place to determine whether there is such a causal link. I have no idea whether conferring is a strictly defined term in the context of clinical research, but even if it is this is not a scientific journal article but aimed at the general public. Going in detail to the claim that 'appear to confer' is biased, even if we take such a strict understanding of confer, compare the semantic effect of affirming and negating the sentence with and without 'appear to' 1. 'the vaccines conferred protection' 2. 'the vaccines did not confer protection' 3. 'the vaccines appeared to confer protection' 4. 'the vaccines did not appear to confer protection' Which of the sentence above is closest to the truth, and which is most inaccurate?
gus_massa 2y ago
I agree. Double blind randomized controled trial or it didn't happen. Perhaps people with early symptoms are not given the vacine because it's too expensive and not mandatory? Perhaps people with the vaccine are younger becase it's a recent vaccine? Perhaps people that has no money for the vaccina had no money for therapies to slow the sympthoms?
- energy123 2y ago
  Double blind randomized controlled trial with endpoints and statistical methods disclosed in advance from a lab with a reputation for publishing null results, or it didn't happen.
- Mordisquitos 2y ago
  Penultimate paragraph of TFA: 'The first double-blinded randomised clinical trial to test the effectiveness of antivirals against dementia is now under way. A group of researchers mostly based at Columbia University are testing whether valacyclovir, an antiviral used against HSV1, can slow down cognitive decline in people with early stage Alzheimer’s. Between 2018 and 2024, the researchers recruited 120 patients and treated half with the antiviral. They expect to publish their findings later this year. John Hardy, whose research forms the basis of the dominant amyloid theory of Alzheimer’s, and who has been a critic of the virus theory, says that a positive result in this trial would begin to convince him otherwise. If Dr Geldsetzer and his team can secure the funding, a similar trial of the shingles vaccine may soon follow.'
  - apinstein 2y ago
    Oh wow, a bunch of Alzheimer’s grants at Columbia were canceled, including the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. Unclear if this study was affected… https://taggs.hhs.gov/Content/Data/HHS_Grants_Terminated.pdf https://taggs.hhs.gov/Content/Data/HHS_Grants_Terminated.pdf
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    So... and unfinished RCT of an unrelated drug an a project to start in the future a RCT of this new use of the vaccine. The problem is mixing the real protection of the vaccine against shingles that has been tested in RTC and new aplications that have not been tested enough. If there are too many false provisional anouncements, people will not thrust medicine.

Mordisquitos 2y ago

Hence why the article does not say that the vaccine conferred protection against dementia, but rather that it appeared to confer protection.

ekianjo 2y ago
appear to confer is a pretty biased wording. Rather, the only correct way to write about it is "there was a correlation that needs further investigation, we have no idea if there is a causal link about it".
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  thr vaccine study is a pretty clear (partial) causal link. there is a jump discontinuity in all causes dementia cases based on week of birth, where the jump occurs at the NHS policy cutoff week (if you are older than this week you are ineligible fof the vaccine). It's likely partial because vaccines only confer resistance against one subset of virii and there may be nonviral Alzheimer's too. in any case causality is not really in question in that study
- Mordisquitos 2y ago
  I do not see the bias, all the more so given that the whole article after that first paragraph very clearly explains that further investigation is taking place to determine whether there is such a causal link. I have no idea whether conferring is a strictly defined term in the context of clinical research, but even if it is this is not a scientific journal article but aimed at the general public. Going in detail to the claim that 'appear to confer' is biased, even if we take such a strict understanding of confer, compare the semantic effect of affirming and negating the sentence with and without 'appear to' 1. 'the vaccines conferred protection' 2. 'the vaccines did not confer protection' 3. 'the vaccines appeared to confer protection' 4. 'the vaccines did not appear to confer protection' Which of the sentence above is closest to the truth, and which is most inaccurate?

gus_massa 2y ago

I agree. Double blind randomized controled trial or it didn't happen. Perhaps people with early symptoms are not given the vacine because it's too expensive and not mandatory? Perhaps people with the vaccine are younger becase it's a recent vaccine? Perhaps people that has no money for the vaccina had no money for therapies to slow the sympthoms?

energy123 2y ago
Double blind randomized controlled trial with endpoints and statistical methods disclosed in advance from a lab with a reputation for publishing null results, or it didn't happen.
Mordisquitos 2y ago
Penultimate paragraph of TFA: 'The first double-blinded randomised clinical trial to test the effectiveness of antivirals against dementia is now under way. A group of researchers mostly based at Columbia University are testing whether valacyclovir, an antiviral used against HSV1, can slow down cognitive decline in people with early stage Alzheimer’s. Between 2018 and 2024, the researchers recruited 120 patients and treated half with the antiviral. They expect to publish their findings later this year. John Hardy, whose research forms the basis of the dominant amyloid theory of Alzheimer’s, and who has been a critic of the virus theory, says that a positive result in this trial would begin to convince him otherwise. If Dr Geldsetzer and his team can secure the funding, a similar trial of the shingles vaccine may soon follow.'
- apinstein 2y ago
  Oh wow, a bunch of Alzheimer’s grants at Columbia were canceled, including the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. Unclear if this study was affected… https://taggs.hhs.gov/Content/Data/HHS_Grants_Terminated.pdf https://taggs.hhs.gov/Content/Data/HHS_Grants_Terminated.pdf
- gus_massa 2y ago
  So... and unfinished RCT of an unrelated drug an a project to start in the future a RCT of this new use of the vaccine. The problem is mixing the real protection of the vaccine against shingles that has been tested in RTC and new aplications that have not been tested enough. If there are too many false provisional anouncements, people will not thrust medicine.