Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flu vaccination linked to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease

uth.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 159 posts

Re: Flu vaccination linked to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease

#61

Post by [deleted] »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #35
i_love_limes wrote: post #26

Epidemiologist in training here... There are quite a few comments in this thread already jumping on the 'correlation != causation' train. While that is true, I'd like to clarify a couple things: 1. The journal article didn't suggest it was causal. But such a correlation with such a large population warrants publication and further research into causation. 2. literally the first thing that any epidemiologist would con…

I do not remember where I read it (probably xkcd) but it was that correlation is not casuation, though the numbers are doing big winks to you (or something like that) As a physicist who had to endure helping biologists with statistics and cooling down their enthusiasm: it make sense to have a deeper thought about the experiment. As parent wrote, there may be various reasons for the correlations, sometimes you have ra…

[deleted]

Re: Flu vaccination linked to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease

#62

Post by pcl »

amacneil wrote: post #44
i_love_limes wrote: post #26

Epidemiologist in training here... There are quite a few comments in this thread already jumping on the 'correlation != causation' train. While that is true, I'd like to clarify a couple things: 1. The journal article didn't suggest it was causal. But such a correlation with such a large population warrants publication and further research into causation. 2. literally the first thing that any epidemiologist would con…

If they only intend to claim correlation, avoiding the word "linked" in the announcement would probably help with general public interpretation. I feel like in English, "linked" usually implies some sort of potential causation, not just a general relationship. For example: "boyfriend linked to murder case".

This reminds me of the intentionally-ambiguous "officer-involved shooting" turn of phrase.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-...

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/officer-involved-shooting.php

Re: Flu vaccination linked to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease

#63

Post by Spooky23 »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #35
i_love_limes wrote: post #26

Epidemiologist in training here... There are quite a few comments in this thread already jumping on the 'correlation != causation' train. While that is true, I'd like to clarify a couple things: 1. The journal article didn't suggest it was causal. But such a correlation with such a large population warrants publication and further research into causation. 2. literally the first thing that any epidemiologist would con…

I do not remember where I read it (probably xkcd) but it was that correlation is not casuation, though the numbers are doing big winks to you (or something like that) As a physicist who had to endure helping biologists with statistics and cooling down their enthusiasm: it make sense to have a deeper thought about the experiment. As parent wrote, there may be various reasons for the correlations, sometimes you have ra…

With this sort of thing, lots of social factors weigh in too. Access the flu shots implies regular access to healthcare and perhaps other interventions.

Re: Flu vaccination linked to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease

#64

Post by ekianjo »

lukev wrote: post #54

Lots of discussion in this thread about the accuracy of the implied claim "vaccination can prevent Alzheimers", but not a lot about the correct course of action. Which seems to me to be, unambiguously, you should absolutely be religious about getting your flu shot every year. The vaccine is known to be safe and with few side effects (or at least, safer than the actual flu, which is the bar that needs to be cleared.)…

This seems like a dubious recommendation. In Japan there is a large acceptance of yearly flu shots yet Alzheimer s prevalence remains high.

Re: Flu vaccination linked to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease

#65

Post by kelnos »

bilsbie wrote: post #33

I posted this exact link two days ago. What gives?

I wouldn't think anything nefarious happened. A few possibilities:

* You posted it during a time of day when the site receives less traffic, and it scrolled too far down or off the New page for people to see it and vote it up. (Looks like you posted during lunch time on the US west coast, so maybe this isn't likely.)

* When you posted, there was other big news or something going on that people were absorbed in, and didn't notice your post.

* Some don't visit HN multiple times a day, and perhaps you just got unlucky that many of the people who would have found this interesting didn't see it 2 days ago, but did happen to be around today.

* Your account was created three days ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if HN doesn't weight upvotes on new-account submissions as highly as for older accounts. Also consider that your first submission (the day before) was flagged and killed; that might put you in a time-limited penalty box. (I don't know any of this for a fact, as I have no idea how HN's software works, but it seems plausible.)

* Just dumb luck. I've made a bunch of submissions that I thought were interesting (and though would appeal to a wide variety of HN readers/commenters), but it just turned out that it wasn't the case. Maybe it was just timing or something else.

I believe the mods have stated that HN allows duplicate links within a shorter-than-normal time period if the previous posting didn't get much attention, so it's perhaps not surprising that the software allowed the repost.

Re: Flu vaccination linked to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease

#66

Post by georgia_peach »

i_love_limes wrote: post #26

Epidemiologist in training here... There are quite a few comments in this thread already jumping on the 'correlation != causation' train. While that is true, I'd like to clarify a couple things: 1. The journal article didn't suggest it was causal. But such a correlation with such a large population warrants publication and further research into causation. 2. literally the first thing that any epidemiologist would con…

Thank you for posting this. I doubt people can make it to adulthood--or even manage speaking in complete sentences--without having some rudimentary appreciation for "correlation != causation", yet it is so frequently posted--both here & the r-place.

And its vileness is far beyond midwittery. It is a lazy & incredibly weasely way to stifle unwelcome lines of inquiry: by pre-emptively accusing anyone who would continue along those lines as a mental defective.

That being said, modern research is mostly a profit/status driven false-positive factory.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Re: Flu vaccination linked to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease

#67

Post by LargeWu »

planarhobbit wrote: post #53
itsoktocry wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are quite a few comments in this thread already jumping on the 'correlation != causation' train. Complaining about correlation not being causation is the perfect theme for the midwit meme. It's one of my pet peeves.

I’d say they should show evidence that they know what they’re talking about, but then I’d be accused of credentialism.

Being able to demonstrate technical understanding of a problem isn't credentialism. Conversely, having an undergraduate degree in X isn't evidence of expertise.

Re: Flu vaccination linked to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease

#68

Post by thaumasiotes »

Symmetry wrote: post #57
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not remember where I read it (probably xkcd) but it was that correlation is not casuation, though the numbers are doing big winks to you (or something like that) As a physicist who had to endure helping biologists with statistics and cooling down their enthusiasm: it make sense to have a deeper thought about the experiment. As parent wrote, there may be various reasons for the correlations, sometimes you have ra…

I like the phrasing, "Correlation correlates with causation because causation causes correlations".

Causation frequently removes correlations that would otherwise exist.

Re: Flu vaccination linked to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease

#69

Post by spandrew »

blagie wrote: post #36
i_love_limes wrote: post #26

Epidemiologist in training here... There are quite a few comments in this thread already jumping on the 'correlation != causation' train. While that is true, I'd like to clarify a couple things: 1. The journal article didn't suggest it was causal. But such a correlation with such a large population warrants publication and further research into causation. 2. literally the first thing that any epidemiologist would con…

The scientists said it was causation. "We found that flu vaccination in older adults reduces the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease for several years. The strength of this protective effect increased with the number of years that a person received an annual flu vaccine – in other words, the rate of developing Alzheimer’s was lowest among those who consistently received the flu vaccine every year" Yes, that's in a…

This is a mischaracterization of even the words you've quoted.

The team did indeed find that flu vaccines reduced the risk of Alzheimers. But he specifically doesn't say they know why the flu vaccine lowers the risk. Ie. They can't claim causation if they don't understand the underlying reason for the change. That's not how science works.

In fact in the article in question he says the opposite: That the immune system is vastly complex, and all they can say is the immune system reacts to flu vaccines (all flu, not just a specific one) by diminishing an Alzheimers response. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ More study needed plz.

Re: Flu vaccination linked to 40% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease

#70

Post by sudosysgen »

amacneil wrote: post #44
i_love_limes wrote: post #26

Epidemiologist in training here... There are quite a few comments in this thread already jumping on the 'correlation != causation' train. While that is true, I'd like to clarify a couple things: 1. The journal article didn't suggest it was causal. But such a correlation with such a large population warrants publication and further research into causation. 2. literally the first thing that any epidemiologist would con…

If they only intend to claim correlation, avoiding the word "linked" in the announcement would probably help with general public interpretation. I feel like in English, "linked" usually implies some sort of potential causation, not just a general relationship. For example: "boyfriend linked to murder case".

Correlations do imply a link, though. They don't imply causation, but in the absence of selection bias and with enough of a sample size, it is almost certain there is a link somewhere.
Post reply on HN