Epstein-Bar has recently been very credibly fingered as the leading cause of Multiple Sclerosis: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/epstein-barr-virus-may-be-leading-cause-of-multiple-sclerosis/
Will we discover that some other mysterious disease of unknown origin is caused by a Virus?
https://twitter.com/PGeldsetzer1/status/1661776663074738176?s=19
More evidence (again not proof)
@LachlanMunro Indeed! Very interesting evidence. Not strong enough for proof yet though.
More evidence but not yet proof
What would be the standard for resolution? Will a correlation strong enough to be published in a peer reviewed journal be enough? I.e. just enough to raise our priors significantly, but not enough to be a slam dunk.
To rephrase: Do we want (a) strongly raising our priors but not super conclusive (like our evidence for herpesviridae and Alzheimer's) OR something that is very conclusive (like our evidence for cervical cancer, kaposis sarcoma)
1) EFFECT SIZE: how strong should the effect size correlation coefficient be?
2) STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE:how confident should the p value be
3 METHODOLOGICAL CONFIDENCE: Would you consider some of these too weak?
Self reported history of viral infection vs Disease correlation
IgG vs Disease correlation
IgM:IgG Disease correlation
Viral RNA expression in tissue for viruses that get embedded long term (e.g. herpesviridae/ paplioma viruses?)
@SachitDaniel Anything as strong as the evidence for Epstein Bar & MS
