[ramraj07]

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.

[rcxdude]

Just say your point instead of dancing around it.

[ramraj07]

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.

[rcxdude]

I would turn around the same request to you. I would ask that you look at how scientific research and hypotheses are actually created and the messy nature of evidence for anything that isn't particle physics and not just repeat cliches.

[br121]

Research on the human body start with an observation, for the good reason that the omniscent orb has not invented yet, and what is causation and what is correlation is yet to be determined. Then, sometimes after years of research, it can be determined if what was observed was causation or correlation. That's why study that don't bring to a new discovery are extremely valuable nevertheless, as they show a path that was just a false lead and allow other researches to seek for something else