The study in question didn't compare caffeine intake of persons while they
had AD to those without AD, but over a 20 year period prior to being
diagnosed with probable AD, according to the abstract.
Yes, incipient AD may have been a factor, but for 20 years previous to
diagnosis? (Also, caffeine is a central nervous system stimulant which
supposedly reading the financial pages isn't, at least in any obviously
similar sense.)
Again the study is very small and we don't have the full text.
Another question is the following, quoting from an unrelated article in the
NY Times:
--------------------------------------
When so many variables [as it looks to be in this study] are in question
... it is quite likely that chance alone will cause a few of them to appear
significant. Scientists usually employ statistical formulas to ensure that
none of the associations they find can be attributed to chance...
--------------------------------------
So, did the study in question take care here?
Also, per the newspaper article, prospective studies are needed.
-- Roy
> A similar observation that could have been made is that the Alzheimers
> patients read the financial pages of the local newspaper significantly
> less often than those without AD and then to infer that if only you
> could force those AD patients to read the financial section they might
> not have AD.
