How To Argue With Friends and Family That Vaccines Do Cause Autism

Weapons of Intellectual Defense—Section: Vaccines and Statistical Studies

Photo by Stephen Dawson on Unsplash

This series is what I call weapons of intellectual defense—guarding ourselves and strengthening both our understanding and our ability to articulate topics that may be mind-changing to others.

As we do here at Unorthodoxy, we evaluate the world for what it is. When there are deceptions, we call them out. And we don’t just call it out whimsically—we call it out with data, facts, and logic to present a sound argument.

Most people may want to do this, but since the pandemic, no one’s been able to really do this in a peaceful and loving way—because it turns into arguments, and friendships are ruined.

So throughout my work, I’ve put together resources and feedback from subscribers on better ways to engage, argue, and defend truth.

---

One of the biggest topics we’re using this for? Discussions about vaccines.

Whenever you discuss vaccines and their relationship to health outcomes, data and science are always presented. We examine this and evaluate it, but we understand that deception is a real force throughout our world—and it also occurs in the sciences and statistics.

So we call that deception out. And to do that effectively, we need to master three foundational pieces from my work:

• The Sacred Art of Logic

• The Three C’s of Critical Thinking

• How to Disagree Without Losing Your Humanity

Let’s walk through why each of these matters and how they work together.

The Sacred Art of Logic: What Logic Actually Is

Before we can even start talking about what logic is, we need to first understand what reasoning is. This is the foundation everything else builds on.

As humans, we reason. We think about the world; we mentally process the world. We take one thing and add it to another; we make connections. That’s how we reason. Reason is how we see the world.

Now, when we argue, what we’re doing is making that reasoning available to others.

In my article “The Sacred Art of Logic,” I talk about how we have ideas like penguins are birds and birds have feathers, so penguins must have feathers. That is reasoning. When you structure it, it becomes an argument.

But here’s where it gets crucial: Logic is what ensures your conclusion is accurate and follows the necessary premises of life itself. This matters more than we realize. You don’t just reason because it sounds good—you reason because it’s right.

You don’t just reason because it sounds good—you reason because it’s right.

In our society, we have been fed sophisticated arguments that crumble under scrutiny. For strong arguments, we need to know what we’re talking about. You need to know what’s being defined. If we’re discussing justice, then let’s define justice and stick to that definition. Health, let’s define and stick to the definition of health.

We also need to understand what makes a valid argument versus what makes a sound argument. Here’s an example of a valid argument: All fish can fly. A salmon is a fish. So salmon can fly.

It sounds valid. It sounds sophisticated. But what we realize is that just because it sounds valid, doesn’t mean it’s true. The structure holds, but the premise is false.

Logic is examining if our reasoning is sound. You don’t want valid arguments—you want sound arguments. The art of logic is understanding if our reasoning, our mental process of how we see the world, is actually sound.

And here’s what most people miss—it’s not just how we think. It’s actually very spiritual. How do you see the world around you? Logic is how we align our minds with the structure of reality itself.

If you haven’t already, check out the article on logic. It’s a great tool to understand how you see the world, how we see the world, and why this is so important when we start to factor in things like deception.

The Sacred Art of Logic: Why Brilliant People Believe Stupid Things

The Three C’s of Critical Thinking: Weapons of Statistical Warfare

The next piece in this analysis is what I call the Three C’s of critical thinking. Here we dive into correlation, causation, and confounding variables. Since the pandemic, science has been everywhere, and we’ve had so many terms thrown around that are used as weapons against us.

“Correlation Does Not Equal Causation”—The Selective Shield

Let’s start with “correlation does not equal causation.” The idea is, yes, that is absolutely true when you’re looking at something in a vacuum and you’re only looking at two things. You want to be careful that you’re not necessarily using correlation to lead to causation.

However, what we see in the real world is that patterns exist for a reason. And here’s the thing—one of the patterns we’ve seen with this phrase is that it’s used whenever it fits to protect the mainstream narrative.

Just earlier this year, when we had deaths in countries because of measles, what did we see? We applied correlation equals causation by saying since they have measles and they died, measles equals death. We used correlation equals causation there.

However, in other areas—like vaccines and autism—suddenly we don’t use correlation and causation. That’s the irony of it.

This phrase is really a defense to uphold the mainstream narrative. In reality—and this is the powerful part—causation is inferred through correlation. That’s how science actually works.

The Causation Progression: How Investigation Really Works

Causation is established through a progression of evidence that starts with observation. Observation tells us an association. Then we further dive into those associations and investigate them properly.

But then you have the other scene, which is known as confounding variables. A lot of times confounding variables are not needed if you have an association that’s strong and consistent across multiple analyses. When you’re observing this, that requires investigation, but confounders are often used to take away from that investigation.

What’s even more interesting is that a lot of these confounders themselves are theoretical—they have no real impact on studies and can actually be used to manipulate and change the data.

When you see large effects in observational studies, it’s hard to ignore. We’re seeing this all over the place, especially when we see studies that show vaccinated kids having ratios extremely high—500x higher! You can’t just wave that away with theoretical confounders.

500x higher! You can’t just wave that away with theoretical confounders.

When we understand the data that is being weaponized against us, when we can see why we don’t need to worry about confounding variables or correlation versus causation in the way they’re presented to us, we are able to defeat the deception of reasoning that the mainstream narrative pushes on us.

We have to understand—everything comes from greed and deception, as I talk about in my work on humanity versus deadening.

Weaponized Logic—How ‘Correlation vs. Causation’ is Used to Dismiss inconvenient Truths

How to Disagree Without Losing Your Humanity

Now, here’s the human side. Because even with logic and critical thinking, we still have to talk to people. We also need to understand people from all walks of life, which often manifests as disagreement.

A disagreement is literally two individuals with different perspectives having different views of life. We have been under propaganda, we’ve been under indoctrination, so it’s fair that individuals have different ways of seeing reality.

We’re going to have these conversations and we’re going to have arguments but what we want to do is make sure we’re disagreeing properly, and that’s where my article on disagreeing comes in. Here we discuss some of the rules from that piece:

• Rule Number One: Identify the Point of Contention —We need to see where we actually disagree. Are we arguing about data? Definitions? Worldview? Name it so we can focus the conversation.

• Rule Number Two: Nothing Personal — If an individual is no longer attacking the point of contention and is now going to personal attacks, the individual has automatically forfeited their position. They have lost the argument.

• Rule Number Three: Steel Manning — To build a healthy dialogue, you take their arguments and walk them through it so they can almost analyze where the fault may be. You make their position as strong as possible, show you understand it, then examine it together.

These are forms of positive disagreement because iron sharpens iron, and we need to get back as humanity to sharpening each other.

Whenever there is false reasoning and false information—especially disinformation intended to provide bad information—we have to address that with positive information and truth.

How to Disagree During the Holidays

The Real Battle: From Belief to Knowledge

Ultimately, this conversation and many other conversations like this are all about belief. The belief in mainstream science, the belief in modern medicine—these all fall under what I call the tenets of scientism.

Scientists now are revered to where people believe in their word versus knowing the facts. But here’s the thing: You don’t believe what your name is—you know what your name is.

What’s happening is we are attacking a belief system—Modern Medicine—and we don’t need to believe in what it says, we need to know the truth. These facts with logic and reasoning help us fight the deception of belief and know the truth and logic that is of this world.

What’s happening is we are attacking a belief system—Modern Medicine—and we don’t need to believe in what it says, we need to know the truth.

When you master these tools—sound logic, the ability to see through statistical manipulation, and the skill to disagree respectfully—you’re not just winning arguments. You’re aligning your thinking with truth itself.

In a world designed to confuse and deceive, that alignment becomes both your weapon and your shield.

Guard yourself. Rescue others. The future of humanity depends on it.

---

Key Takeaways

• Recognize weaponized statistics. When someone throws around “correlation doesn’t equal causation” or starts talking about confounding variables, these aren’t neutral scientific principles—they’re often weapons deployed selectively to protect certain narratives.

• Know the difference between belief and knowledge. You don’t need to believe what experts tell you—you need to know how to evaluate what they’re actually saying. Too much passes for knowledge that’s really just sophisticated-sounding belief.

• Combine intellectual rigor with human respect. These tools work best when paired with genuine respect for the people you’re talking with. We’ve all been under propaganda. The goal isn’t to humiliate or win points—it’s to sharpen each other and move closer to truth together.

Next Steps

1. Master the fundamentals first. If you haven’t read “The Sacred Art of Logic,” start there. You can’t spot deceptive reasoning until you understand what sound reasoning looks like.

2. Practice steel manning in your next disagreement. Take someone’s argument and make it stronger than they presented it. Then examine it together. This builds trust and actually gets to truth faster than attacking weak versions.

3. Watch for selective application of statistical principles. Notice when correlation suddenly matters or doesn’t matter depending on what conclusion is being drawn. That’s your signal that politics, not science, is driving the conversation.

4. Share these tools. The more people who understand these concepts, the harder it becomes for deceptive arguments to gain traction in our communities.

---

As always, thank you for the time and attention. Have a wonderful day.

Ashe,

Franklin O’Kanu

If you enjoyed this work and gained value from it, support more work like this by becoming a paid subscriber for $5/month

Related Articles: Your Complete Toolkit

If this overview has sparked your interest, here are the full pieces that dive deeper into each concept:

1. “The Sacred Art of Logic: Why Brilliant People Believe Stupid Things” This foundational piece explores how to spot sophisticated deception in a world built on false reasoning. Dive deep into the difference between valid and sound arguments, the spiritual dimension of clear thinking, and why logic isn’t just an academic tool—it’s alignment with divine order itself. Essential reading before tackling any contentious topic.

2. “Weaponized Logic: How ‘Correlation vs. Causation’ is Used to Dismiss Inconvenient Truths” A detailed breakdown of how statistical phrases get deployed as shields for mainstream narratives. Learn the three C’s of critical thinking (Correlation, Causation, Confounding Variables) and see exactly how each gets misused in vaccine discussions and beyond. Includes specific examples of when correlation should and shouldn’t be treated as evidence for causation.

3. “How to Disagree During the Holidays: Why Disagreements Can Bring Us Closer Together” The human side of intellectual defense. This piece lays out the practical rules for having productive disagreements without burning bridges or losing relationships. Learn steel manning, proper argumentation boundaries, and why disagreement—done right—is one of humanity’s most powerful tools for discovering truth.

Each article builds on the others, but you can read them in any order based on what interests you most. Together, they form a complete system for navigating our current landscape of narrative warfare with both intellectual rigor and human compassion.

---

Support Unorthodoxy!

If this article opened your eyes, there’s more behind the paywall. Exclusive, in-depth pieces that go deeper, challenge more, and reveal the truths they don’t want us to see.

🔑 Become a paid member and gain access to premium and archived articles, exclusive podcasts, and thought-provoking chats you won’t find anywhere else.

📖 Prefer a comprehensive take? My book, An Unorthodox Truth, is a fact-based journey through 200 years of deception—a must-read for those seeking clarity in a manipulated world.

☕ Feeling generous? Leave a simple tip to support this work—every bit

helps me continue creating meaningful content.