Top Tweets for #causaliteit

One thing I keep noticing in public debates about vaccines and glyphosate is how familiar the arguments feel. Not because the technologies are similar - they aren’t. But because the reasoning patterns are. Again and again, the same steps appear. First, correlation is treated as causation. Two trends rise around the same time, and coincidence is mistaken for proof. It feels intuitive. It’s also one of the easiest ways to be misled. Then comes the appeal to “natural.” Natural is framed as safe, synthetic as suspicious. Complex questions of biology, chemistry, and toxicology are reduced to a moral shortcut. Next, cherry-picked studies are elevated to “smoking guns.” A single alarming result is treated as decisive, while the much larger body of evidence pointing the other way quietly disappears from view. At that point, institutions themselves become the problem. Regulatory agencies, expert panels, and scientific consensus are no longer safeguards - they’re recast as proof of corruption. Disagreement stops being about data and becomes about motive. Finally, lawsuits are treated as scientific proof. Court verdicts and settlements - shaped by legal standards and emotional narratives - are mistaken for conclusions about causality and risk. What’s striking is not just how often this sequence repeats, but what gets left out. At every step, large bodies of evidence are ignored: decades of toxicology, long-term epidemiology, independent replication, and repeated reviews by regulatory authorities around the world. That evidence doesn’t disappear because it’s weak. It disappears because the narrative can’t survive contact with it. This doesn’t mean science is infallible. It doesn’t mean regulators always get everything right. And it certainly doesn’t mean skepticism is wrong. But meaningful skepticism engages with the full evidence base. It weighs all the data, not just the most alarming fragments. It asks hard questions - and accepts hard answers. Different targets. Same machinery. Once you see the pattern, it becomes very hard to unsee it. If you disagree with this framing, I’m genuinely interested in hearing why - especially if you can point to where the weight of evidence is being misrepresented, not just which single study or headline feels most compelling. Good conversations don’t start by assuming bad faith. They start by agreeing on what counts as evidence. And that’s a discussion worth having.