all 7 comments

[–]zyxzevn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most of the medical studies are based on correlation. And corrupt scientists know how to influence the studies to increase the correlation, even when their medicine have strong negative effects.

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

All causation is initially demonstrated in correlation; the correlation is then further investigated to understand the mechanism, proving the causation.

Correlation is the first step. What's so infuriating about the argument about the VAERS data isn't that there is necessarily causation. The correlation is just that, a correlation. BUT significant correlation warrants investigation! I would have been open to an argument about whether this correlation had some "third-party" cause. What totally convinces me that is not the case, however, is that the "vaccine" proponents didn't make that argument; instead they flatly refused even to discuss the possibility. It is this response as much as the original correlation which tells me absolutely these jabs are in fact lethal.

[–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All causation is initially demonstrated in correlation; the correlation is then further investigated to understand the mechanism, proving the causation.

You can do it both ways.

  1. Notice a correlation then investigate the causation.

  2. Discover a causation and then examine resultant correlations.

Example of the latter case: You discover a genetic polymorphism that affects certain molecular functions, then examine clinical data to see how polymorphisms of this gene affects various diseases and prognoses.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

NO. Full stop. Discussion DONE.

googol or boink "hidden correlations" before even thinking about talking back to me on this one.

This kind of facts you surely can find even on your favorite propaganda distribution engine.

Tinkerbell was already done with rl-bs like this "as it is" when some dumbass moronic physicists tried to rape her for the first time about two centuries ago.

So you literally gotta grow some more hairs on your balls before even trying to rape her "better" than most physicists hallucinate doing.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Correlation is never the same thing as causation. They can (sometimes) go together, like smoke and fire (fire causes smoke, but not all fires are smokey, and not all smoke comes from fires); but they are never the same thing.

When you genuinely have causation, you should expect some correlation, the other way around does not follow.

Having said that, u/StillLessons is 100% correct that the correlation in VAERS warrants a genuine, open-minded investigation, not just to be dismissed or white-washed. That's what VAERS is for!

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People who say "correlation does not imply causation" in casual conversation often misinterpret what's meant by "imply." The phrase is only correct if one assumes the strict mathematical definition of "imply," as used in proofs. Correlation absolutely can and does hint at causation (which is a very typical usage of "imply" outside of mathematical proofs).