Two Things Can Be True Without One Causing the Other
A prime example of how correlation does not mean causation
Many of you have sent me messages about this blog post related to this study so here’s a break down by Dr Lauren Hughes and I to help make it make sense.
As we write this, we’re both drinking coffee, in the late afternoon. Both of us can do that without being jittery or up all night because of an enzyme called cytochrome P450 (CYP450) which is responsible for metabolizing about 80% of drugs–including things like alcohol, caffeine, and you guessed it: vaccines.
Here’s a familiar example to explain the function of these enzymes:
You know how you get warnings about not drinking grapefruit juice while taking some medications? That’s because it can inhibit CYP450, specifically CYP3A4, and cause too much drug to be in the body.
Image credit: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/grapefruit-juice-and-some-drugs-dont-mix
If the enzyme is blocked, then it can do the opposite, and cause too little of the drug in the body.
Image credit: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/grapefruit-juice-and-some-drugs-dont-mix
Before we jump into the mess of this blog post, we want to give you a tool for your toolkit to help you navigate the current information ecosystem.
The tool is an easy to remember acronym: SIFT.
(S)TOP
(I)nvestigate the Source
(F)ind better coverage
(T)race claims, quotes, and media back to the original context
The claim: A “jaw-dropping study” suggests vaccines cause SIDS via brainstem failure.
First, let’s STOP. Take a beat. Pause before sharing and ask yourself: does this content or its claims and conclusions make feel reactive? It’s about SIDS, so of course it’s going to elicit strong feelings. That’s a first sign to slow down before you go deeper in the doomscroll.
Second, let’s Investigate the Source. Ask yourself what is this paper/article/video saying, and what is it not saying?
Here are 3 things the paper IS saying:
Let’s start with the first line: “Vaccines are a cornerstone of modern medicine, significantly reducing morbidity and mortality worldwide.”
Like we mentioned, this paper looks at CYP450–a truly fascinating topic and one that should be researched. It asks the question of how the genetic variability and the immaturity of CYP450 enzymes may influence vaccine-related outcomes in vulnerable populations.
The paper notes that CYP450 does not metabolize most of the adjuvants/stabilizers they mentioned, but their question is for cumulative dose. Aluminum? Cleared by the kidneys.
Formaldehyde? Does not accumulate in tissue.
Polysorbate 80? Does not accumulate in tissue.
Here are 3 Thing the Paper is NOT saying:
Let’s be very clear here: SIDS is often due to an abnormality of serotonin, impairing an infant's arousal response, raising carbon dioxide (CO2), and increasing the risk of apnea events and death. The paper is not saying vaccines cause SIDS. Full stop.
Data in VAERS does not imply that SIDS occurs “within 3 to 7 days after vaccination appointments”--VAERS is a reporting database, not a proof of association. Anyone can report anything at any time on VAERS. While we don’t discount these children died, we do have to realize that infants sometimes do die and infants also get vaccines. Two things can be true without one causing the other.
The paper also does not suggest that vaccine ingredients are a) toxic or b) overwhelm immature infant livers and cause inflammation or dysfunction in the brainstem’s cardiorespiratory centers.
Ok step three–let’s Find Better Coverage. Ask yourself who wrote this, who they are, and why they might have written it. Look for trustworthy sources (like this Substack and our Instagram accounts) who base their conclusions on evidence-based research.
One thing to consider is WHO wrote this. The name should be pretty familiar, as he was an infamous serial misinformer during the COVID-19 pandemic: Peter McCullough. Earlier this year, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) revoked McCullough’s board certification. Why? For repeatedly promoting discredited treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and spreading lies about vaccines and mRNA technology. He is not a reliable source for public health information. Additionally, a source mentioned this hot take is another red flag—the Mawson study–Dr. Hughes did a thorough debunk last year.
Fourth, let’s Trace the Claims, Quotes, and Media back to the original context. Look for buzz words and see if the claims are even stated in the original source itself. In this case, the paper said quite the opposite of the bad takes circulating online.
Whenever you see buzz words like “toxic”--remember these words first: the dose makes the poison.
What does that mean? Everything can be toxic, at a toxic dose. Even water.
No ingredients, including adjuvants, are at a toxic dose (a level determined by the EPA for every chemical we are exposed to). No vaccine ingredients accumulate in the body to develop toxicity either.
The vaccine schedule is safer, less taxing on developing immune systems, and more effective than it was 40 years ago. In fact, the number of antigens–what triggers the immune response–decreased by 90%, from 20,000 to about 200. Jessica did an debunk of the vaccine schedule misinformation here.
This is a textbook example of misusing VAERS data to prey on the vulnerability of parents–especially new parents–who are trying to make informed choices for themselves, and their families.
SIFT Source: https://nwtc.libguides.com/evaluating_resources/sift
Thanks for being here,
Jessica Malaty Rivera, MS & Dr. Lauren Hughes