I’ve written about this lie quite a bit, read more:

news.immunologic.org/p/a-recent-s...

I discuss this and more in today’s newsletter.

Read it if you’re even a little bit frightened by RFK Jr.’s claims. It’s not your fault, he’s been blasting them into the ecosystem for decades.

Link: news.immunologic.org/p/rfk-jrs-al...

For those who want to read some actual science, I highly recommend reading the below article.

(if reading is hard for you like it is Calley, substack will even read it aloud to you):

news.immunologic.org/p/correlatio...

Happy Monday!

🧵

I wrote an article specifically on this very topic & used examples to illustrate why correlation *isn’t* causation.

🔗 news.immunologic.org/p/correlatio...

Maybe you want to read something that isn’t wellness propaganda for once?

Remember Calley: it’s important to be data-driven.

8/

So Calley, the opposite is true.

People *with* critical thinking skills pause & try to understand claims being made from observations.

Are these things plausibly related?
If so, what is the potential mechanism?
What would we have to do in the follow up study to answer that?

7/

Today, there are a huge number of BAD observational studies coming out because of the predatory publishing industry.

Basic demographics aren’t even corrected for.

Major factors of a health outcome, like age & cancer, or age & neurodegenerative disease —aren’t adjusted for.

6/

And instead of using context, consulting *relevant* scientists to understand why that conclusion isn’t accurate, & using measured language, they fear monger.

For Calley, it’s exploitative.
He makes money when he undermines real scientists & credible health professionals.

5/

Media outlets, “health journalists,” & wellness influencers like Calley with zero scientific research experience, (+ even some physicians)

don’t understand study design.

So they run wild with false claims about “links” b/w some nebulous “exposure” & some health outcome.

4/

OBSERVATIONAL studies do this as a rule.

They don’t control for variables.
They look at data & make guesses about what might be related to each other.

But they *cannot*, by definition, make claims that one causes the other.

Because it’s just passively observing.

3/

For people with the ability to use their brains and understand context,

*no one* uses “correlation isn’t causation” for *any* argument.

They use it when appropriate.
When — literally, two data sets follow similar trends but aren’t actually linked to each other.

2/

He is willfully ignorant and seems to take pleasure in the harm he causes, especially to children.

I’ve written a lot about how he profits off anti-science activism, here is one such article:

news.immunologic.org/p/rfk-jr-des...

Chemo doesn’t “kill more people than it saves” —that’s an objective lie.

Chemotherapy is tough because of the nature of cancers, but it saves lives.

People telling you otherwise?
They’re lying—and they’re profiting while they do it.

Read more:

news.immunologic.org/p/cancer-mis...

🧵

Chemotherapy is a catch-all term to describe a variety of compounds that interfere with cellular growth processes.

It’s tricky because cancer cells are your own cells — they’re just behaving abnormally due to mutations in key gene families.

4/

Survival rates for cancer have increased dramatically over the past 60 years, thanks to:

Science, research, & therapeutic developments like chemotherapies, immunotherapies, and cell therapies.

3/

Not cancer pseudoscience & unproven treatments.
Not conspiracy theories.

In fact, forgoing proven treatments for cancer pseudoscience causes people to die from cancer faster & more often.

Science saves lives.
Misinformation costs them.

2/