Comment by A_D_E_P_T
2 years ago
The paper found absolutely no effect in men. That is to say: No trend nor indication that it might protect men.
Sometimes trends seem suggestive of a real effect, but don't rise to statistical significance. That is not the case here.
This is in Figure 4 of the preprint.
It could also be that there is a potential effect that this study would have been underpowered to detect, and by chance no trend was visible in this population. That's not inconsistent, or even particularly unlikely, if I'm understanding it right.
(A) To suggest that the lack of effect in men is a statistical anomaly, and that there IS an effect we're not seeing.
(B) To suggest that the effect in women is a statistical anomaly, and that there's nothing there but a fluke.
These things, from the data, are approximately equally likely. Because there was zero effect in men -- in fact, men who took the vaccine were apparently more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's, though this trend was extremely slight.
> These things, from the data, are approximately equally likely.
They aren't. The paper states that 95% confidence interval for men includes a maximum protective effect of up to -1.9 while the 95% confidence for women include a minimum effect of -1.3.
Thus it is far more likely that there is a protective effect for man than no protective effect for women.
7 replies →
this isn't necessarily true. if the study had 1000 women and 100 men, it would be a lot more likely that the result in men was wrong. similarly, if the effect was 20x weaker in men than women, but still existed you would be much more likely to see no effect in men even though effects existed for both.
2 replies →