The argument that correlation does not equal causation is a common reddit trope spouted by those who do not understand logic or science. In fact, correlation routinely establishes causation, even if you do not know the intervening steps or other unknown factors.
For example, if we had never encountered an automobile before we could infer that turning the key on an ignition causes the car engine to start, even if we do not have any idea how the ignition or engine or any other car part works, which is true of many drivers. We can however conclude to a a scientific certainty that the turning of the ignition causes the engine to start, because of the strong correlation, even though in some cases the engine will not start (due to lack of gas, malfunction, etc) or the engine can be started in other less commonplace ways such as hotwiring it.
Similarly when it comes to the likely side effects of drugs, correlation has often been used correctly to determine both benefits and risks. The use of Rogaine as a hairloss drug was discovered accidentally due to the correlation between test subjects using it and growing hair on the palm of their hands when handling the product. Similarly, the dangers of thalidomide were discovered by the correlation between the high incidence of birth defects among mothers using it, long after the product had been approved for sale by the relevant authorities.
People often pull out the correlation does not equal causation argument when they try to undermine a link they do not like such as the increase in turbo cancers and heart disease following the vaccines.
You'll note, folks, that the discussion is no longer about correlation equaling causation.
A lot of lab work has to be done before a link is made between a circumstance and its cause, and no one in that 4 minute Twitter clip provides that link.
And you are avoiding the point that J. B. Handley is a non-expert who is saying "There must be a connection", but without any evidence other than correlation.
Ah yes.
The old "correlation means causation" argument.
Here, this may help you: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/why-correlation-does-not-imply-causation-the-meaning-of-this-common-saying-in-statistics/
P.S. - J. B. Handley - whose degree is in East Asian Studies & Economics, not medicine, google him - gets pretty upset himself folks.
The argument that correlation does not equal causation is a common reddit trope spouted by those who do not understand logic or science. In fact, correlation routinely establishes causation, even if you do not know the intervening steps or other unknown factors.
For example, if we had never encountered an automobile before we could infer that turning the key on an ignition causes the car engine to start, even if we do not have any idea how the ignition or engine or any other car part works, which is true of many drivers. We can however conclude to a a scientific certainty that the turning of the ignition causes the engine to start, because of the strong correlation, even though in some cases the engine will not start (due to lack of gas, malfunction, etc) or the engine can be started in other less commonplace ways such as hotwiring it.
Similarly when it comes to the likely side effects of drugs, correlation has often been used correctly to determine both benefits and risks. The use of Rogaine as a hairloss drug was discovered accidentally due to the correlation between test subjects using it and growing hair on the palm of their hands when handling the product. Similarly, the dangers of thalidomide were discovered by the correlation between the high incidence of birth defects among mothers using it, long after the product had been approved for sale by the relevant authorities.
People often pull out the correlation does not equal causation argument when they try to undermine a link they do not like such as the increase in turbo cancers and heart disease following the vaccines.
You'll note, folks, that the discussion is no longer about correlation equaling causation.
A lot of lab work has to be done before a link is made between a circumstance and its cause, and no one in that 4 minute Twitter clip provides that link.
You are creating a straw man argument (also known as a tuchidiocy), as if the only indication that they are dangerous were a twitter clip.
And you are avoiding the point that J. B. Handley is a non-expert who is saying "There must be a connection", but without any evidence other than correlation.