undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrcxdude2mo ago0 comments

Correlation is not causation but it's a pretty good idea to start with how blindingly obvious differences in brains affected with the disease might be related with the disease. There's also evidence that it precedes the symptoms of the disease.

And it's also not a good idea to suppose that you are dealing with unrelated effects without good reason. Mutations->more amyloid->earlier symptoms should be considered indicative of the disease pathway until sufficient evidence counteracts that, by Occam's razor.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

ramraj072mo ago· 2 in thread

Im not gonna try to correct you because its probably going to be futile, but I implore you to paste this thread into chatgpt and ask where you could be wrong in your logic.

Correlation not causation is all the more important in a topic like this; nothing you said suggests amyloid causes alzheimers or just forms because of it.

rcxdudeOP2mo ago

Just say your point instead of dancing around it.

ramraj072mo ago

What exactly do I need to say further? My first comment was that "scientists today still don't understand correlation =/= causation" and the replies are all scientists who try to explain again how correlation can still mean causation (no it doesn't, and it definitely doesn't in this case and that has been the root cause from the beginning). So I tried to implore you to go review your text yourself, but you are clearly above it, so not sure what else I could do here.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse