I read the paper. Have you ever done a study like that? How would you feel if after 14 years it found no surprising result that would warrant some media attention? You adjust then you adjust, Spearman let's try Pearson instead etc.
Actually show me a 10+ year study that found no surprising result.
If the fact that bunch of foundational Alzheimer's studies were found to be faked recently by a guy who profited from them for 20 years and many such cases doesn't make you more realistic then well ... you must have an exceptionally good heart :)
Ok so you're obviously not a fan of scientists and are throwing out about a bunch of whatabouts, but the fact remains that in this paper they controlled for a bunch of confounders and your original comment said they didn't. I guess the charitable interpretation of your reply is that even though the paper says they controlled for those factors you think that they're lying because of your general skepticism about science.
Actually show me a 10+ year study that found no surprising result.
If the fact that bunch of foundational Alzheimer's studies were found to be faked recently by a guy who profited from them for 20 years and many such cases doesn't make you more realistic then well ... you must have an exceptionally good heart :)