1.) Correlation is not causation.
2.) Faked correlation, or seeing a correlation which isn’t even there due to biased perception, is especially not causation. This is why you need a *lot* of people who actually understand statistics independently checking everything, rather than relying on purely intuitive pattern recognition and potential fraud.
3.) Some of the experts *do* look into these things nowadays once the concerns are raised, even when it’s extremely unlikely because the concerned people are too ignorant of the subject to understand why their concerns are almost certainly unfounded or even nonsensical. See, for example, *multiple* decades of attempts, worldwide, to find even the slightest proof that homeopathy works any better than a placebo, and failing.
4.) On the occasions when they don’t, it’s usually¹ because the concerns in question have already been so thoroughly addressed that the dead horse has been beaten to the point of being pulverized - see, for example, the last few decades of continuously ignoring requests to prove homeopathy works, because certain people are either willfully ignorant of the previous attempts or are refusing to believe it’s already as debunked as it can possibly get.
[4½.) ¹Clarification of “usually”: Because occasionally the technology isn’t there yet, or currently the only realistic way of determining things to a near-perfect degree of confidence would require methods too unethical to consider. In this case, there’s even less reason to seriously entertain any insistence of the truth being something which *is* demonstrably incorrect and/or harmful to a similar degree of confidence, merely because it “makes sense” to some ignorant people. In the unlikely chance things are just *that* off, it’s not yet at the point where entertaining such concerns could possibly reveal anything useful.]
5.) Your ignorance of these things, or failure to understand any of it, is a deficiency on *your* part, not theirs.
