I addressed the “correlation is not causation” bugaboo in “Letter to a Holocaust Denier” in 2021:
“Let’s address the matter of correlation and causation since ‘correlation does not equal causation’ is one of the regularly regurgitated bullet points from the VAERS disinformation campaign.
“The American Council on Science & Health notes: ‘It…
I addressed the “correlation is not causation” bugaboo in “Letter to a Holocaust Denier” in 2021:
“Let’s address the matter of correlation and causation since ‘correlation does not equal causation’ is one of the regularly regurgitated bullet points from the VAERS disinformation campaign.
“The American Council on Science & Health notes: ‘It is oft-repeated that correlation does not imply causation. But it does. That’s precisely why epidemiologists and economists are so fascinated by correlations. Thus, it is far more accurate to say that correlation does not prove causation.’
“That is where Hill’s Criteria of Causality comes in. It can be used to assess causation in cases of statistically anomalous correlations—like the colossal ones that started occurring in January 2021 and have been rising at historically unprecedented rates ever since.’”
See original for associated links if you want to keep these in your pocket to counter the correlation-is-not-causation mockingbirds:
The "correlation does not equal causation" saying makes sense when cause and effect cannot be ascertained. Michael Crichton called it the "wet streets cause rain" phenomena, it happens all the time. So maybe people dying suddenly is causing them to go get vaxxed? No.
The other reason for the saying is to be wary of possible confounders such as unhealthy people on death's door being more likely to get the vax. But as Jeff Childers pointed out, the study controlled for just about everything and the correlation was still there. Maybe they missed something but it seems unlikely.
The wise saying of "correlation does not equal causation" used to mean use caution in drawing conclusions. Now it means you must ignore everything your senses, common sense, and life experience tells you, and only trust official pronouncements. It's the perfect midwit saying of someone who thinks they are smart but actually just mouthing platitudes.
Just a note to state that really correlation does not prove causation... until it's been "peer reviewed", published, referenced in other papers and accepted as scientific dogma regardless of validity... So correlation does in fact prove causation if it's favored Science™...
Peer review is no guarantee of reliability. Early skeptic of the Covid narrative, Prof. John Ioannidis, has long been a critic, pointing out the huge fraction of published papers with 'irreproducible results'. James Corbett has a good article on use of AI nowadays to produce 'papers' which fool reviewers: https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/trust-the-computer-generated-gobbledygook
All "peer-reviewed" means is that the published paper has passed conformity to the established scientific paradigm for that subject. IE, nothing new. I would also point out that science is mostly theory, very little of which is proven. Science is the process of postulating a theory to explain observed phenomenon until a new observation comes along that demonstrates that the theory is incorrect or incomplete leading to a new theory. But people being people, scientists are loath to recognize that the established paradigm no longer holds water.
That's why the leading Medical Journal in the world threw 175 of them in the bin 2 weeks ago, the peer reviewed papers were either flat out lies or plagerized. (John Hopkins, I think)
I addressed the “correlation is not causation” bugaboo in “Letter to a Holocaust Denier” in 2021:
“Let’s address the matter of correlation and causation since ‘correlation does not equal causation’ is one of the regularly regurgitated bullet points from the VAERS disinformation campaign.
“The American Council on Science & Health notes: ‘It is oft-repeated that correlation does not imply causation. But it does. That’s precisely why epidemiologists and economists are so fascinated by correlations. Thus, it is far more accurate to say that correlation does not prove causation.’
“That is where Hill’s Criteria of Causality comes in. It can be used to assess causation in cases of statistically anomalous correlations—like the colossal ones that started occurring in January 2021 and have been rising at historically unprecedented rates ever since.’”
See original for associated links if you want to keep these in your pocket to counter the correlation-is-not-causation mockingbirds:
• https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-holocaust-denier
The "correlation does not equal causation" saying makes sense when cause and effect cannot be ascertained. Michael Crichton called it the "wet streets cause rain" phenomena, it happens all the time. So maybe people dying suddenly is causing them to go get vaxxed? No.
The other reason for the saying is to be wary of possible confounders such as unhealthy people on death's door being more likely to get the vax. But as Jeff Childers pointed out, the study controlled for just about everything and the correlation was still there. Maybe they missed something but it seems unlikely.
The wise saying of "correlation does not equal causation" used to mean use caution in drawing conclusions. Now it means you must ignore everything your senses, common sense, and life experience tells you, and only trust official pronouncements. It's the perfect midwit saying of someone who thinks they are smart but actually just mouthing platitudes.
What they missed was the world wide 5G rollout that coincided with the covid plandemic...
🎯
100%
That last paragraph especially 🎯🎯🎯
Jeff C - well said.
Nailed it Jeff.
Just a note to state that really correlation does not prove causation... until it's been "peer reviewed", published, referenced in other papers and accepted as scientific dogma regardless of validity... So correlation does in fact prove causation if it's favored Science™...
Peer review is no guarantee of reliability. Early skeptic of the Covid narrative, Prof. John Ioannidis, has long been a critic, pointing out the huge fraction of published papers with 'irreproducible results'. James Corbett has a good article on use of AI nowadays to produce 'papers' which fool reviewers: https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/trust-the-computer-generated-gobbledygook
All "peer-reviewed" means is that the published paper has passed conformity to the established scientific paradigm for that subject. IE, nothing new. I would also point out that science is mostly theory, very little of which is proven. Science is the process of postulating a theory to explain observed phenomenon until a new observation comes along that demonstrates that the theory is incorrect or incomplete leading to a new theory. But people being people, scientists are loath to recognize that the established paradigm no longer holds water.
That's why the leading Medical Journal in the world threw 175 of them in the bin 2 weeks ago, the peer reviewed papers were either flat out lies or plagerized. (John Hopkins, I think)
😆👍
Re: "See original for associated links if you want to keep these in your pocket to counter the correlation-is-not-causation mockingbirds".
Pocket? I think I at least need a suitcase! What a great resource to have. Thanks Margaret Anna Alice!
🤣 Delighted you found some things worth packing away, Melissa!
Went straight to my bloated Evernote account - I'd be lost without my Evernote archives!
Thank you❣️
And yet another way to say it is "Correlation is a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove causation".