Correlation and causation are two terms research scientists exploit to drive consensus science—either way: pro or con—for whatever pharmaceutical product de jour they happen to be paid to promote favorably and thereby ‘endorse’ to enhance a manufacturer’s financial bottom line, plus ‘scientific’ point-of-view.
Recently, a study [1] out of Harvard hinted on “correlation and causation” regarding one alcoholic beverage a day and female breast cancer!
In the August 18, 2015 issue of the British Medical Journal, two cohort studies regarding alcoholic beverages were reported with this conclusion:
Light to moderate drinking is associated with minimally increased risk of overall cancer. For men who have never smoked, risk of alcohol related cancers is not appreciably increased for light and moderate drinking (up to two drinks per day). However, for women who have never smoked, risk of alcohol related cancers (mainly breast cancer) increases even within the range of up to one alcoholic drink a day. [1] [CJF emphasis added]
That conclusion unquestionably associates correlation with causation. At one point, however, the BMJ article admits, “The influence of drinking patterns on overall cancer risk is unclear.” Nevertheless, there still are scientific concerns and/or questions relative to correlation and causation, a point that needs to be driven home since consensus science apparently cherry-picks what it wants to ‘excuse’ from the scientific realm of correlation and causation—specifically, vaccines and chronic health problems.
The scientifically-interesting aspect of the BMJ article is that only one—or up to two—drinks per day are involved in a correlation with causation facet relating to cancer morbidity.
On the other hand, if drinking such a seemingly ‘innocuous’ amount of alcohol is being forewarned against in order to keep from contracting certain cancers, especially for women, how come consensus science totally disregards grossly similar vaccine adverse events as “coincidental,” which occur from three human papilloma virus vaccines given to teenage females who, post-vaccines, suffer documented similar dramatic health reactions, rather than claim there’s correlation and causation?
Personally, I find this remark, “It is important to mention that the number of reported adverse reactions does not necessarily mean that there is a link between the vaccine and the reported suspected adverse reaction” [2] from the Danish Health and Medicines Authority unconscionable, since it probably mirrors the Dane’s consensus ‘science’ held in agreement with the U.S. CDC/FDA regarding the HPV vaccine adverse health issues, since Danish and USA health researchers apparently ‘collaborated’ on some research, especially regarding vaccines—the MMR, in particular. [4]
Furthermore, Poul Thorsen, a Danish researcher is a wanted man with a price on his head for defrauding the U.S. CDC [3], and yet he’s not been extradited to the USA. However, the Julian Assange WikiLeaks affair [5] is treated differently and most certainly gets Danish government prosecution and cooperation, it seems. Both Thorsen and Assange affairs involve the United States’ specific interest(s) ‘points to press legally’ so, therefore, international cooperation seems to be tailored-made to fit specific U.S. needs—or so it seems.
Regarding vaccines, the U.S. CDC/FDA [7,8] are so influenced by Big Pharma in the USA that vaccines have to be considered as ‘untouchables’ in every aspect: research, medicine, politics, law—the 1986 “get out of jail free” act [6] Congress passed endowing vaccine makers with legal-liability-free status for their products’ harms and failures.
With the hundreds of thousands of VAERS reports for vaccine adverse reactions, one would think that someone in consensus science finally would realize that they are dealing in smoke and mirrors when they come up with a correlation and causation theory for one or two drinks of alcohol a day leading to disease, but no negative health implications for pumping formaldehyde, aluminium in any of four compounds, Thimerosal (49.6% ethylmercury], polysorbate 80, unknown viruses, human diploid cells [aborted fetal cell lines], animal and insect products, and possible genetically modified nanoparticles into infants starting 24 hours after birth, and at 2, 4, and 6 months old [10] when their immune systems are not fully developed! Where is scientific common sense in immunologically-compromising a less-than-twenty-pound infant, whose bodily functions are not fully developed, with up to nine vaccine actives at one time every 2 months over the course of the first 6 months of life?
In life, no one, especially an infant, cannot be exposed to 9 different diseases at ONE time and for which the body has to build immunity factors and process physiologically. Impossible! Frankly, subjecting infants and toddlers to such physiological stressors ought to be considered criminal child abuse rather than “well baby” visits!
Recent revelations are questioning the possibility that nagalase, an enzyme that turns off the body’s ability to produce GcMAF naturally, also may be an ingredient in vaccines. I say that needs to be confirmed as a scientific yes or no by credible scientific testing and not by conjecture or hearsay. Requests for vaccines to be tested for nagalase have been made, one specifically by Dr Rima Laibow, MD, of the Natural Solutions Foundation. [9]
If any researcher or whistle blower would like to send Dr Rima a vial, or vials, of vaccines for testing for nagalase, you may contact her via the contact form here.
Vaccines must be subject to the same investigative scrutiny as any corporate product, but the federal agencies that are supposed to be responsible for ensuring public health trust, obviously have disregarded their official duty in favor of the ‘revolving door policy’ with Big Pharma.
References:
[1] http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4238
[3] http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2011/04/13/dane-indicted-for-defrauding-cdc.html [4] http://vaccineinfo.net/immunization/injury/autism/DanishMMRAutismStudy.shtml
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)
Amazing that they can compare a few drinks a day with a negative result but totally ignore the possibilities of the damage that vaccines can destroy ones autoimmune system.
While testing for nagalase have them test for peanut oil as well. Unlabeled peanut oil in vaccines has been put forth as a possible cause for the explosion of deadly peanut allergies in USA.