The big question I want to put out there for consideration by the people is:
Should such a highly speculative SNP such as rs9472817 be on snpedia?
User SNPedia was quite unamused by including an unreplicated result on snpedia.
It seemed that this user was contemplating editing out the SNP.
And sure, the point is well taken. Look on alzgene: nearly every single one of those 2973 polymorphisms were wrong
After 20 years of almost 100% failure, a list of very highly statistically valid AD single variants have finally been found.
Now, we are upping the ante and going for the duo combos.
One should not be totally surprised that the past is prologue and many years of 100% failure will ensue: including rs9472817.
The present study was using a small sample, perhaps a little before the fact data massage was involved.
What do the people think?
Should SNPedia take the high road and remove the SNP?
Would it be worthwhile for someone to add in the rs9381468 so that people on the v4 platform would be informed?