by Stephen Halbrook
Note: the following is more addressed towards pro-vaccine propagandists than those who are simply pro-vaccine but who are unaware of all the reported injuries and deaths caused by vaccines,.
“Correlation is not Causation” is a slogan regularly used by pro-vaccine propagandists to dismiss the countless injuries and deaths caused by vaccines (such as autism and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome [SIDS]) as witnessed and reported by parent after parent, and victim after victim. (For just some testimonies, see here, here, here, and here.)
For such propagandists, it doesn’t matter how often such tragedies occur; only scientific studies (well, at least those that the propagandists are willing to arbitrarily accept), can “prove” that vaccines cause harm when a vaccine precedes injury or death.
And, since we are told, no “credible” studies prove that vaccines regularly cause injury and death, all the harm that follows vaccination is a grand coincidence! (Such insane thinking in the “scientific” community is not without precedent — just consider the widely accepted myth of evolution, which holds that all life itself is a cosmic coincidence.)
Such an approach, however, is based on ignorance or uncritical thinking at best, dishonesty at worst; is utterly irrational; and is inconsistent or even hypocritical. As such, we really shouldn’t have to address this at all; but we live in insane times. So here goes.
Irrational and self-refuting
The notion that “Only studies can prove causation of vaccine injury” is not proven, but assumed. This idea is circular; the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Such thinking seems to stem from the notion that “only a scientific study can prove something to be true” – a self-refuting argument.
The reason? Because the very statement that “only a study can prove something to be true” cannot be itself proven by any studies; it doesn’t fit its only criterion for validation. It’s like using English words to say “I cannot speak a word in English,” or asserting “there is no truth” (which is really saying “it is true that there is no truth”).
We have common sense
Long before the existence of scientific studies as we know them, God blessed mankind with common sense. We had the capability of discerning cause and effect.
For instance: we could determine that eating poisonous berries was dangerous; that eating too much food made us fat; and that starvation leads to death. There were even doctors who could diagnose and treat illnesses!
Indeed, it was common sense that enabled us to come up with the scientific method to begin with.
When a boxer has problems thinking straight after receiving a hard blow to the head, he knows that the blow caused it. When several people get sick after eating at a particular restaurant on the same day, common sense tells us that it was food poisoning.
When one keeps getting poison ivy after touching it, then that person knows that he is allergic to poison ivy. When one’s throat swells up after eating peanuts, that person knows that he is allergic to peanuts.
When doctors prescribe medicine and patients complain of side effects, doctors know to get their patients off of the medicine.
When a cobra bites someone and he dies afterwards, we know that it was due to the bite. And, without a doubt, when person after person is harmed after vaccination, we know that vaccines are the cause.
Incredible that we can make such logical connections without a scientific study! Who would have thought that this was possible?!
“Only studies can prove causation of vaccine harm” reduces to absurdity
Moreover, the statement “only studies can prove causation of vaccine harm” reduces to absurdity. For if studies are the only means for determining whether a vaccine has killed someone, then if every single person who was vaccinated dies following vaccination, then we still wouldn’t know that vaccines are dangerous until a study was released to prove it!!!
Imagine that! 100% of vaccine recipients drop dead, and yet, we wouldn’t know that it’s the vaccines, since no study has shown this. Correlation isn’t causation!
But we all know this is absurd, and the reason we know it is because we have common sense.
Now, while we have just reduced to absurdity the view that “only studies prove causation of vaccine harm,” we have also at the same time shown that common sense can be used to logically connect vaccines with harm. It is common sense that tells us that if 100% of those vaccinated dropped dead after being vaccination, then vaccines are dangerous — no study needed.
But it doesn’t have to be limited to 100% of cases (any more than food poisoning can only be assumed when 100% of those who eat at a restaurant get visibly sick; we know to assume food poisoning when a much lesser number of people sicken). Even a tiny percentage of people dying after vaccination can indicate that at least the vaccine could be responsible; and whatever the percentage of vaccine-caused deaths is today, the predictably constant reports of deaths following vaccination compel us via our common sense to say without reservation that vaccines do indeed kill – and frequently at that.
Scientific evidence: reality versus blind trust
A major fallacious assumption on the part of pro-vaxxers is to consider scientific proof and belief in something presented as scientific proof as one and the same. However, when someone tells me that he has conducted a study and gotten a certain result, since I have not conducted the study myself, I have no way of knowing for sure whether the results were either short-sighted or manipulated. I am taking what he says on trust.
And so my believing a given study to be accurate is not necessarily knowledge of that study being true, but trust that that study is true. And even if I conduct a study myself, I may trust that I have discovered something to be true, while in ignorance have overlooked certain things that render my conclusions false.
Thus we have to be careful not to be too dogmatic when it comes to studies.
Studies, indeed, have their place, and they are most believable when their conclusions appear to conform to reality. But to claim a given study settles a matter at the expense of common sense and reality (e.g., countless eyewitness testimonies to vaccine harm) is to simply engage in confirmation bias.
Moreover, since the history of vaccination is a history of manipulated data to make vaccines look effective, it would be downright foolish to trust pro-vaccine studies. Why should I put my faith in a study that is probably manipulated, and which contradicts reality?
Indeed, guess what: anyone can make a study and manipulate it. I once got together with a few other “experts,” and we concluded that pink unicorns exist on Mars. We even have the peer-reviewed data to prove it!
Sure, our study was funded by a company that claims that pink unicorns exist and sells pink unicorn products. And, this very company indirectly financially supports the peer reviewed journal that our study appears in.
But don’t worry – the vast money supplied to us by them had absolutely no bearing on the results. We didn’t manipulate the results of the study; how could we? How could money possibly influence us?
As everyone knows, conspiracies don’t exit. It’s impossible for people to ever plot evil and deception. Or, at the very least, while we live in a world full of evil, for some reason, evil has no influence in studies. Even the worst of people suddenly become saintly when doing studies. Anyone who dares question this is a conspiracy-monger. Right?
The Bible, studies, witnesses, safety laws, and miracles
Interesting that in the Bible (our standard for ethics), we don’t see “studies” as a criterion for determining guilt in criminal and ecclesiastical offenses. When it comes to evaluating accusations against someone, credible testimony of two or three witnesses — not the testimony of two or three studies – are to be considered (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16).
Witnesses, then, base their accusations on observation and common sense. Sure, hypothetically Scripture might allow for a place for studies in certain trials, but as we can see, witnesses are the crux of the matter when evaluating one’s guilt or innocence.
But while Scripture places a high value on witnesses — being fundamental in certain matters of life, death, liberty, and church standing — pro-vaccine propagandists utterly dismiss them (at least when they testify against vaccines). The witnesses in vaccine history testifying to statistical manipulation to make vaccines look effective – and the countless witnesses in vaccine history testifying to injuries and deaths that occur after vaccination – are dismissed with the magical wand “correlation is not causation.”
Instead, we are to only accept the witness of a few “experts” with conflicts of interests that have “determined” behind closed doors that vaccines are safe and effective.
The Bible’s safety laws (e.g., Exodus 22:6, Leviticus 19:14; Deuteronomy 22:8) – the principles of which we are to apply to our modern societies (per 2 Timothy 3:16, 17) – assume the role of our common sense in discerning unsafe situations, and may even hold people criminally liable for violating such laws. All without studies! And these laws, by implication, condemn the obviously unsafe practice of vaccination.
I imagine there are many in the (so-called) scientific community who reject the miracles of Christ precisely because there are no “studies” to “validate” them; and so when pressed too far, “correlation is not causation” is the philosophy of the atheist.
Actually, pro-vaxxers believe correlation can be causation too
“Correlation doesn’t mean causation” in the pro-vaccine paradigm – unless it conveniently relates to the following:
• The eradication of disease by vaccines
• Deaths from not being vaccinated
• Deaths from diseases themselves
In the first, pro-vaxxers hold that the disappearance of diseases after vaccination means that vaccination causes diseases to go away. “Correlation means causation.”
(This, of course, ignores the role that hygiene, sanitation, quarantine, and nutrition plays in disease eradication, as well as other factors. See our post here. It also ignores the role statistical manipulation and redefining disease plays. See our post here.)
In the second, pro-vaxxers hold that the unvaccinated die from certain diseases because they were not vaccinated for said diseases. “Correlation means causation.”
(What special pleading! This disregards the fact that some who are vaccinated die from the very diseases that they are vaccinated for, or some other vaccine-caused complication; many of the unvaccinated don’t catch diseases; and vaccination also spreads disease. For the latter, see this post here.)
In the third, pro-vaxxers hold that diseases throughout history have caused deaths. “Correlation means causation.” In this case, they are right. This is common sense. No study is needed to show this.
If only the same common sense would be used to acknowledge that vaccines have throughout history caused many deaths.
And so as we see, “correlation and causation” is simply a tool for pro-vaccine propaganda; it is seen positively when it furthers the cause, and denied when it hurts the cause.
We should not be surprised, then, when in animal vaccine studies, when an animal dies, vaccines are considered the cause of death; but when a person dies from that same vaccine, the death is “coincidence.” As Dr.
Viera
Scheibner (PhD) writes,
Vaccines, such as whooping cough, have been used to deliberately induce encephalomyelitis in laboratory animals. When these unfortunate animals died from the administered vaccines or their active toxic ingredients, the researchers had no problem to causally link the administered vaccines or toxic ingredients with the observed deaths.[1]
Conclusion
Let’s call the “correlation is not causation” mantra for what it is: an irrational dismissal of the countless injuries and deaths caused by vaccines. That is, irrational, or due to ignorance, at best; flagrantly dishonest at worst.
Vaccines are obviously deadly and the harm that follows from them is not some grand coincidence. Perhaps vaccine idolatry is why many jettison common sense in this matter.
One can hide behind all the so-called studies that he wants, but that does not change reality. Absurdity, cloaked in science, could just be a form of rebellion against God, and hostility towards one’s fellow man.
Note
_______________________________________________________
[1] Viera
Scheibner, A critique of the 16-page Australian pro-vaccination booklet entitled “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”. Retrieved June 18, 2019, from http://whale.to/c/A%20critique%20of%20Science%20of%20Immunisation%20by%20Viera%20Scheibner%20PhD-2.pdf
If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.
