It becomes an era in which slogans become truths, even when false.
Discussions with "correlation is not causation" should be countered with a legal notion, "preponderance of the evidence."
When few complaints in one year are followed with massive numbers of complaints in a next year, mouthing "correlation is not causation" is a meaningless exercise in word salad making.
Else, if "correlation is not causation" were always true, then no causes could be found, and certainly no search for causation could be mounted.
That is exactly how this phrase is being used, all too often.
The preponderance of the evidence is that "adverse reactions" far, far above previous years are being registered. To wave them away with a misused slogan is morally reprehensible.
[[Discussions with “correlation is not causation” should be countered with a legal notion, “preponderance of the evidence.”]]
Exactly- was just going to say similar. When there is enough anectdotal evidence suggesting that something may be caused by something else, then it becomes necessary to consider and investigate whether there is a correlation or not.
If 4 out of 40,000,000 people who chew bubbliscious gum get headaches, then likely the gum isn’t causing the issue. If however 4,000,000 get headaches only when they chew the gum, then it needs to be investigated as a possible source of the headaches, because there is a strong possibility that an ingredient in the gum is affecting people badly.
Question is, how many people have suffered heart issues due to the vax possibly? Is there a direct link? Given how serious an issue heart problems are, this should be investigated thoroughly to make sure- it can’t be written off by claiming correlation is not causation