5 Comments
Aug 30Liked by Raphael Lataster, PhD

Well done Raphael - champion ! BTW, for future reference, correlation only equals causation when a fact checker says so :)

Expand full comment
Aug 30Liked by Raphael Lataster, PhD

Brilliantly put! Extra: Yes, correlation doesn’t prove causation. But it also doesn’t prove no causation… Correlation helps us figure out if we should investigate further. It feels like they have gone so far with this that correlation now apparently means “there is 100% no causation”. Except of course if the jabs are correlated with positive outcomes. Then it most definitely is causation, and not some bias or data manipulation…

Expand full comment

I'm sympathetic to this line of investigation, but your repeated statements that all values were statistically significant suggests to me that you're not aware of the significant limitations of p-values. You're not going to be able to do good research until you are.

I recommend Greenland et al ( 2016) Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 31:337–350, DOI 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3

Expand full comment

Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it does stand next to causation shouting 'HEY, LOOK AT THIS EVERYONE!'

Expand full comment

Given the way these two time series evolve, it should be pretty easy to prove Granger causality. Then it is causation.

Expand full comment