Moreover, actual conclusion of the paper: “Common vaccines were not associated with a decreased risk of dementia. Unmeasured confounding and detection bias likely accounted for the observed increased risk.”
Again, the insistence with cherry-picking results. Shame.
Conclusions: Common vaccines were not associated with a decreased risk of dementia. Unmeasured confounding and detection bias likely accounted for the observed increased risk.
Continuing the same paragraph: “Applying a 10-year lag period […] and comparing versus prostate cancer screening […] but not breast cancer screening […] attenuated the risk increase.“
The “attenuated” in this case means “weakened the case for”.
Or, in other words, we found a correlation without finding any causation.
"Results: Common vaccines were associated with an increased risk of dementia (OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.36-1.40]), compared with no exposure."
It's not even a long scroll to get to the results
Conclusions: Common vaccines were not associated with a decreased risk of dementia. Unmeasured confounding and detection bias likely accounted for the observed increased risk.
Headline does not match the title or the paper.
Moreover, actual conclusion of the paper: “Common vaccines were not associated with a decreased risk of dementia. Unmeasured confounding and detection bias likely accounted for the observed increased risk.”
"Results: Common vaccines were associated with an increased risk of dementia (OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.36-1.40]), compared with no exposure."
Again, the insistence with cherry-picking results. Shame.
Conclusions: Common vaccines were not associated with a decreased risk of dementia. Unmeasured confounding and detection bias likely accounted for the observed increased risk.
Continuing the same paragraph: “Applying a 10-year lag period […] and comparing versus prostate cancer screening […] but not breast cancer screening […] attenuated the risk increase.“
The “attenuated” in this case means “weakened the case for”.
Or, in other words, we found a correlation without finding any causation.
"Not associated with a decreased risk" is completely different in meaning than this clickbait lying title.
"Results: Common vaccines were associated with an increased risk of dementia (OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.36-1.40]), compared with no exposure." It's not even a long scroll to get to the results
And the very next line:
Conclusions: Common vaccines were not associated with a decreased risk of dementia. Unmeasured confounding and detection bias likely accounted for the observed increased risk.