Updated: Nov 8
Chapter 4: Article 6
"Correlation does NOT equal causation." That statement is used regularly in vaccine debates. (Ch3: Article 1)
Remember, vaccine studies have NEVER established causation for anything other than antibody generation so ALL we have to rely upon are correlations!
Correlations are pointed to as concrete evidence insisting that vaccines have causedprotection from and prevention of illness, and the creation of immunity. Double standards are not reasonable, and therefore the scientific community must also allow discussion of correlative evidence that suggests vaccination may be causing harm. This currently is not allowed.
People need to understand how testing would need to be conducted to establish causation for an adverse effect, and why it's basically impossible to establish causation. The testing would have to go through a three step process. Researchers would have to give a drug to a patient or a group of patients and record the the serious side effect occurring. Then they would have to withdraw the drug, and record the serious side effect going away. And then they would have to give the drug again – and record the exact same reaction occurring again. In the book Death by Prescription, written by Canadian MP Terrence Young, he states:
[Such a study] would be foolish and unethical. No researcher would complete step three –
[harming] a patient’s ... a second time – because it’s too dangerous. Step three simply
can’t be completed for serious adverse reactions. So instead, the drug companies just put
the drugs on the market. And when the body count begins, they point out subtle
differences with each deceased patient.
The CDC elaborates on causation studies further, they explain that to be able to determine a causal relationship, health outcomes in a vaccinated group would have to be compared to an unvaccinated control group. What the CDC doesn't explain in the following description though, is that they have databases to do such comparisons, but they refuse to conduct this research. Their explanation provides the following information (underline emphasis mine):
Inability to determine causation. VAERS reports are usually not helpful in assessing
whether a vaccine actually caused the reported AEs because they lack either unique
laboratory findings or other information necessary to draw such conclusions. Often
multiple vaccines are administered at the same visit, making attribution of causation to a
single vaccine or antigen difficult. Additionally, there is lack of an unvaccinated group for
comparison in VAERS. Therefore, reports to VAERS are useful for generating hypotheses,
but studies with vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects are necessary to confirm any hypotheses generated by VAERS observations.
If they have the databases needed to make such comparisons, which they do, why do they refuse to conduct this research?
Today, vaccine policy instructs that, "doubts about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist," (Ch2: Article 3). That policy means the health authority has made it a national requirement to showcase ONLY the vaccine positive correlations- correlations which suggest vaccines cause immunity and illness prevention, that vaccines are perfectly safe and DON'T cause harm.
Correlation Concludes Harm - An Example from History
To provide a different important historical example, causation, on it's own has never been
established for tobacco and lung disease. That may shock you, but it's true. Remember, to
prove causation - that tobacco causes disease - the testing would have to go through a
three step process. First the test group would have to be exposed to tobacco and
researchers would have to observe the development of disease. Then they'd have to stop
exposing the group (or not expose a control group) and watch the disease rates reduce or
go away. And then they'd have to repeat the exposure and observe the disease occurring
again. So with tobacco, causation has never been established. Instead, biological evidence
paired with correlative data led to a final consensus that tobacco must in fact cause lung
disease. But to get there took a long time because the scientific consensus originally
rejected any relationship. A BMJ article states (emphasis mine):
Lung cancer was once a very rare disease, so rare that doctors took special notice when
confronted with a case, thinking it a once-in-a-lifetime oddity. Mechanisation and mass
marketing towards the end of the 19th century popularised the cigarette habit, however,
causing a global lung cancer epidemic. Cigarettes were recognised as the cause of the
epidemic in the 1940s and 1950s, with the confluence of studies from epidemiology,
animal experiments, cellular pathology and chemical analytics. Cigarette manufacturers
disputed this evidence, as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to salvage cigarette sales.
Propagandising the public proved successful, judging from secret tobacco industry
measurements of the impact of denialist propaganda. As late as 1960 only one-third of
all US doctors believed that the case against cigarettes had been established.
From first hypothesis that tobacco could cause disease, to medical consensus that it
does, took 66 years years. The paper explains (date emphasis mine):
Tobacco was apparently not even suspected as a cause of lung tumours until the final
decade of the 19th century. In 1898, a medical student by the name of Hermann
Rottmann in Würzburg proposed that tobacco dust—not smoke—might be causing the
elevated incidence of lung tumours among German tobacco workers. Rottmann's mistake
was not corrected until 1912, when Adler proposed that smoking might be to blame for
the growing incidence of pulmonary tumours.
...The 1964 Surgeon General's report, which recognised smoking as a cause of lung cancer in men, is often regarded as a turning point in the recognition of health harms from
smoking. But the Surgeon General's report was actually a kind of scientific anticlimax:
from an evidentiary point of view the case against smoking had been closed by the end of
the 1950s, and it was only the truculence and obstinacy of cigarette manufacturers that
forced a blue-ribbon review by the federal government.
Unfortunately today, we just might be faced with a repeat of history. With the tobacco
situation, that history saw the emergence of a tobacco/disease hypothesis, then it saw a
consensus that rejected the possibility that tobacco could cause disease, and then that
consensus flipped entirely on its head. It took 66 years for that to play out. Much of the tobacco
history parallels what we're witnessing today, but for me, one parallel was most unexpected, that being that in 1898 a medical student first theorized that tobacco caused cancer. If you're well versed on vaccine history, you know it was exactly 100 years later, in 1998, that Dr. Andrew Wakefield published a paper in the Lancet, a paper which today is blamed for the entire "anti-vaccine" movement.
So on the vaccine front, the publication date of that 1998 paper might be marked as day one in a projected 66 year timeline. Knowing the tobacco history, that timeline and the tactics used throughout that debate can serve as a metaphorical GPS for us, to help us pinpoint where exactly we are (22 years in) in bringing about awareness on this topic. One marked difference though between the tobacco and vaccine situation, is that tobacco was a habit started by choice, in adolescence or adulthood. In contrast, vaccination is a required medication forced onto every healthy infant and child. Hopefully because of the force with which vaccination is being pushed, hopefully that force will cause people to begin paying close attention sooner than happened with tobacco.
CONTINUE to the next article here: Ch5: Article 1