Association Versus Causation GDD
Jun 12, 2019
1 min read
Association versus causation is always a huge issue in medicine (and other disciplines). Quite often when something is found to be present at the same time as a disease, many scientists/physicians start cautiously by claiming association before being prepared to assert causation. This certainly was the case with Gd and NSF, when for years from 2006 onwards a number of experts struggled with the association vs causation. Association means that things have been found together, which is very different from something directly resulting in the disease. Gd does cause NSF.
This certainly is where many experts are at with GDD, wanting to consider the relationship an association rather causation. There is no doubt in my mind, not a sliver of doubt, that GBCAs cause GDD.
Where I am in doubt though is to what extent a number of other conditions are associations versus causation. In fact for the most part most genetic finding I consider are likely associations, but may be part of a larger constellation of gene abnormalities that can be seen with GDD. This is also true with a whole host of other conditions such as Mast Cell Disease, Mitochondrial Disease, and the gene often written about MTHFR.
I will follow-up with blogs on new thoughts on genetics and GDD, and the subject of copathogenics.
Richard Semelka MD Consulting
Stay tuned on the latest advancements:
Reading your post after being on https://bitcoincasinoplay.net, I realized the same confusion between coincidence and cause shows up in gambling and medicine—people see a pattern and call it a system. Your point that GBCAs clearly cause GDD, while many genetic findings are only associations, is a sharp line to draw. I'm going to be more careful about assuming causation from correlation in my own work.