lupi

cow of tailed snake (gay)

avatar by @citriccenobite

you can say "chimoora" instead of "cow of tailed snake" if you want. its a good pun.​


i ramble about aerospace sometimes
I take rocket photos and you can see them @aWildLupi


I have a terminal case of bovine pungiform encephalopathy, the bovine puns are cowmpulsory


they/them/moo where "moo" stands in for "you" or where it's funny, like "how are moo today, Lupi?" or "dancing with mooself"



Bovigender (click flag for more info!)
bovigender pride flag, by @arina-artemis (click for more info)



ticky
@ticky

absolutely wild to see evidence come out that shingles vaccination has a strong link to reduction in alzheimers cases

(via https://mastodon.social/@mhoye/110459991081722237)

the idea that the generation after mine might literally luck into a significant reduction in alzheimers cases due to expanding shingles vaccination and/or the chickenpox vaccine is frankly a little spooky

EDIT: Important caveats brought up by @belarius here https://cohost.org/belarius/post/1591758-here-s-the-crucial-f, notably:

THIS IS A PREPRINT. The manuscript has not completed the peer-review process, and it may transpire that there are methodological or analytic problems that are identified at that stage that invalidate the above conclusions


atonal440
@atonal440

It's a pretty common minority viewpoint in the research community that herpes viruses cause or contribute to Alzheimer's. Much of the focus is on treating the protein clumps that seem to cause the actual degenerative disease, but why those even happen is an open question.


belarius
@belarius

This is a somewhat confusing graph, so it's important to think it through. The manuscript reports that the September 2 1933 cutoff was the initial cutoff, and that eligibility was then progressively rolled out to younger patients. This created a discontinuity: Those with birthdays earlier than Sept. 2 1933 (left half of the graph) have only a 0.01% chance of receiving the zoster vaccine, whereas those born later than the cutoff (right half of the graph) had a 47.2% chance of receiving the vaccine. In other words, adoption went from zero to roughly one person in two from one side of the cutoff to the other.

This is why the gap in panel A only reports about a 1.3% reduction: It's the average of a mix of vaccine adopters and non-adopters, at roughly a 50-50 split. Put another way, Panel A reports the whole sample, including the unvaccinated folks. Panels B and C then report the estimated difference between adopters and non-adopters, which looks to be in roughly the 3.5% to 4.0% range.

Importantly, the error bars on all of these effects need to be taken seriously, in both directions. The errors bars exclude "zero effect", but only just, so there's a very real chance that the benefits are smaller than those reported here (zero hasn't been definitively ruled out, either; it just looks unlikely based on this sample). By the same logic, the maximum plausible effect of this vaccine, according to this sample, is around a 7% reduction. That's important: This effect can be real and causal without the vaccine acting as a magic bullet.

So, the takeaway here, in my view, is that this points us toward a crucial mechanism of action in Alzheimer's (that is, some consequence of exposure to diseases in the herpesvirus family). Given the effect sizes in question, for example, entirely eradicating Varicella zoster wouldn't reduce Alzheimer's cases to zero.

As a final point worth emphasizing, THIS IS A PREPRINT. The manuscript has not completed the peer-review process, and it may transpire that there are methodological or analytic problems that are identified at that stage that invalidate the above conclusions. Even if it passes peer review, of course, the manuscript may have problems and won't be the final word, but this effect is far from "settled science" and it would be irresponsible to go around saying that this is now a result "that we know." There are still crucial stress tests that science will need to perform.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @ticky's post:

I’m under the impression a childhood chickenpox vaccine confers ongoing immunity, while in some jurisdictions the shingles vaccine is (currently? I guess this could change eventually given this evidence) offered only to people 50 or older unless immunocompromised, so it’s a bit complicated

in reply to @belarius's post:

Yeah, this is very important to note, I tried to avoid suggesting it was settled but the language is vague. I've added a link to your post and quoted the note about this not having completed peer-review to the OP. Thanks!

No worries! I don't think your post was out of line at all: Saying we've "seen evidence come out" is a great middle ground, and based on my (admittedly brief) glance through the preprint, the evidence certainly looks compelling. I just wanted to add some commentary about the concrete effect sizes, because people often get their rhetorical wires crossed when effects are both real and small. :eggbug-wink: